Literature DB >> 24201675

Adverse events associated with pelvic organ prolapse surgeries that use implants.

Keri S Wong1, John N Nguyen, Terry White, Shawn A Menefee, Andrew J Walter, Cara J Krulewitch, Colin T Anderson-Smits, Sharon M Jakus-Waldman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the rate of vaginal implant exposure associated with biologic grafts and permanent mesh used for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, to describe treatments used for these complications, and to estimate response rates to these treatments. The secondary aims were to describe the operative and perioperative complications.
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of female members of Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California and Hawaii who underwent POP surgeries with biologic grafts and permanent mesh between September 2008 and May 2010. Inpatient and outpatient electronic medical records were reviewed for postoperative adverse events.
RESULTS: During the 21-month period, 1,282 women, mean age of 62 years (±10 standard deviation), median parity of 3 (interquartile range 2-4), and median body mass index of 28 (interquartile range 24-30) underwent prolapse repairs with 1,484 implants with a mean follow-up time of 358 days (±276 standard deviation). Vaginal exposures occurred more often with permanent mesh (53/847 [6%]) than biologic grafts (10/637 [1.6%]) (P<.001). Resolution of vaginal exposure after the first treatment occurred in 24 of 63 (38%), whereas 39 of 63 (62%) required multiple treatments. Surgical excision was performed in 20 of 63 (32%) exposures. Permanent mesh exposures were more likely to require surgical excision (20/53 [38%]) than biologic graft exposures (zero of 10) (P=.02).
CONCLUSION: Vaginal exposure occurred more frequently with permanent mesh than biologic graft, may require multiple treatments, and occasionally require surgical excision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24201675     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  6 in total

1.  Vaginal native tissue repair versus transvaginal mesh repair for apical prolapse: how utilizing different methods of analysis affects the estimated trade-off between reoperation for mesh exposure/erosion and reoperation for recurrent prolapse.

Authors:  Alexis A Dieter; Marcella G Willis-Gray; Alison C Weidner; Anthony G Visco; Evan R Myers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  Comparison of synthetic mesh erosion and chronic pain rates after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eoin MacCraith; Eoghan M Cunnane; Michael Joyce; James C Forde; Fergal J O'Brien; Niall F Davis
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review.

Authors:  Stephanie Deblaere; Jan Hauspy; Karen Hansen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 1.932

4.  Joint position statement on the management of mesh-related complications for the FPMRS specialist.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  Porcine dermis implants in soft-tissue reconstruction: current status.

Authors:  Neil J Smart; Nicholas Bryan; John A Hunt; Ian R Daniels
Journal:  Biologics       Date:  2014-03-10

6.  Current situation of complications related to reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Zhi-Jing Sun; Tao Guo; Xiu-Qi Wang; Jing-He Lang; Tao Xu; Lan Zhu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.894

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.