Lauren A Cadish1, Elizabeth H West2, Jessica Sisto2, Teresa Longoria2, Judith D Bebchuk3, Emily L Whitcomb4,5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Irvine Medical Center, 101 The City Drive, Building 56, Suite 800, Orange, CA, 92868, USA. lcadish@uci.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California Irvine Medical Center, 101 The City Drive, Building 56, Suite 800, Orange, CA, 92868, USA. 3. Department of Research and Evaluation, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Pasadena, CA, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Irvine Medical Center, Irvine, CA, USA. Emily.L.Whitcomb@kp.org. 5. Kaiser Permanente Irvine Medical Center, 6650 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA. Emily.L.Whitcomb@kp.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We evaluated whether the use of estrogen vaginally prior to synthetic midurethral sling insertion mediates the risk of mesh exposure. A secondary aim was to evaluate other factors that may be associated with mesh exposure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing midurethral sling insertion from January to December 2010 within the Southern California Permanente Medical Group. Women who used estrogen vaginally prior to surgery were classified as those who filled a prescription between 1 and 45 days before surgery or whose medical records indicated its use at the time of preoperative evaluation. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for factors associated with mesh exposure while controlling for confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 1544 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 248 (16.1 %) used estrogen vaginally prior to surgery. Mean age was 53.7 years (range 27-89). Thirty-seven (2.4 %) women were diagnosed with mesh exposure, of whom 19 underwent surgical reoperation. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, preoperative use of estrogen vaginally was not associated with the risk of mesh exposure (OR 0.79, CI 0.26-2.38, p = 0.67). Age, body mass index, menopausal status, use of hormone replacement therapy, smoking status, and diabetes were not associated with risk of mesh exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative use of estrogen vaginally did not appear to mediate the risk of mesh exposure following midurethral sling placement in this cohort.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We evaluated whether the use of estrogen vaginally prior to synthetic midurethral sling insertion mediates the risk of mesh exposure. A secondary aim was to evaluate other factors that may be associated with mesh exposure. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing midurethral sling insertion from January to December 2010 within the Southern California Permanente Medical Group. Women who used estrogen vaginally prior to surgery were classified as those who filled a prescription between 1 and 45 days before surgery or whose medical records indicated its use at the time of preoperative evaluation. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for factors associated with mesh exposure while controlling for confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 1544 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 248 (16.1 %) used estrogen vaginally prior to surgery. Mean age was 53.7 years (range 27-89). Thirty-seven (2.4 %) women were diagnosed with mesh exposure, of whom 19 underwent surgical reoperation. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, preoperative use of estrogen vaginally was not associated with the risk of mesh exposure (OR 0.79, CI 0.26-2.38, p = 0.67). Age, body mass index, menopausal status, use of hormone replacement therapy, smoking status, and diabetes were not associated with risk of mesh exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative use of estrogen vaginally did not appear to mediate the risk of mesh exposure following midurethral sling placement in this cohort.
Authors: Anne M Suskind; Samuel R Kaufman; Rodney L Dunn; John T Stoffel; J Quentin Clemens; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: David D Rahn; Renée M Ward; Tatiana V Sanses; Cassandra Carberry; Mamta M Mamik; Kate V Meriwether; Cedric K Olivera; Husam Abed; Ethan M Balk; Miles Murphy Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: John N Nguyen; Sharon M Jakus-Waldman; Andrew J Walter; Terry White; Shawn A Menefee Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Charles Nager; Paul Tulikangas; Dennis Miller; Eric Rovner; Howard Goldman Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Larry T Sirls; Gregory P McLennan; Kim A Killinger; Judith A Boura; Melissa Fischer; Pradeep Nagaraju; Kenneth Peters Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Phil Hyun Song; Young Don Kim; Hyun Tae Kim; Hwa Su Lim; Chang Ho Hyun; Joon Hyung Seo; Eun Sang Yoo; Choal Hee Park; Hee Chang Jung; Alexander Gomelsky Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 5.588