Literature DB >> 26352538

Removal or Revision of Vaginal Mesh Used for the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence.

Blayne Welk1, Hana'a Al-Hothi2, Jennifer Winick-Ng3.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Synthetic mesh slings are the most common surgical treatment for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, the US Food and Drug Administration has released warnings that question the safety of vaginal mesh.
OBJECTIVES: To measure the incidence of mesh removal or revision after SUI procedures and to determine whether significant surgeon and patient risk factors exist. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Population-based retrospective cohort study that included all adult women undergoing an incident procedure for SUI with synthetic mesh in Ontario, Canada, from April 1, 2002, through December 31, 2012 (N = 59 887). The end of potential follow-up was March 31, 2013. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2014, through February 28, 2015. EXPOSURES: Yearly volume of mesh-based procedures for SUI performed by the treating surgeons and their surgical specialty. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of surgical procedures related to removal or revision of mesh slings (owing to erosion, fistula, pain, or retention). We hypothesized a priori that surgeon volume would be inversely correlated with complications.
RESULTS: Among the identified 59 887 women who underwent a mesh-based procedure for SUI, the median age was 52 (interquartile range [IQR], 45-63) years. High-volume surgeons (≥75th percentile of yearly mesh-based procedures) were less likely to perform a simultaneous hysterectomy (performed in 11.5% vs 16.5% of patients; standardized difference, 0.14), were more likely to work in an academic center (28.9% vs 16.3% of patients; standardized difference, 0.30), and saw the patient less frequently in the year before the procedure (median, 2 [IQR, 1-3] vs 3 [IQR, 2-4] visits; standardized difference, 0.26). Complications were treated in 1307 women (2.2%), and the 10-year cumulative incidence rate was 3.29 (95% CI, 3.05-3.53). In our multivariable survival model, patients of high-volume surgeons had a significantly lower risk (95% CI) for experiencing our composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [0.65-0.83]; absolute risk reduction, 0.63% [0.36%-0.92%]; P < .01). Gynecologists were not significantly associated with more complications compared with urologists (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.83-1.08]; P = .38). Among our secondary exposures of interest, multiple mesh-based SUI procedures increased the risk for complications (HR, 4.73 [95% CI, 3.62-6.17]; P < .01). However, traditional high-risk patient features did not increase the risk (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.08-4.13]; P = .59). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Ten years after SUI mesh surgery, 1 of every 30 women may require a second procedure for mesh removal or revision. Patients of lower-volume surgeons have a 37% increased likelihood of having a complication. These findings support the recommendations of the US Food and Drug Administration related to the use of vaginal mesh for treatment of SUI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26352538     DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.2590

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  21 in total

Review 1.  Mesh Perforation into a Viscus in the Setting of Pelvic Floor Surgery-Presentation and Management.

Authors:  Seth A Cohen; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Midurethral sling complications.

Authors:  Sender Herschorn
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Medicolegal basics and update on transvaginal mesh in Canada.

Authors:  Brock Hengel; Blayne Welk; Richard J Baverstock
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Case distribution and complications of mid-urethral sling surgery in a Canadian city before and after the Health Canada advisory on pelvic floor mesh.

Authors:  Kevin Carlson; Richard Baverstock; Andrea Civitarese; R Trafford Crump
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Transvaginal sling excision: tips and tricks.

Authors:  Marisa M Clifton; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Outcome of surgical management for midurethral sling complications: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Victoria Kershaw; Rachel Nicholson; Paul Ballard; Aethele Khunda; Santhosh Puthuraya; Elaine Gouk
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  A randomized comparison of a single-incision needleless (Contasure-needleless®) mini-sling versus an inside-out transobturator (Contasure-KIM®) mid-urethral sling in women with stress urinary incontinence: 24-month follow-up results.

Authors:  Ozan Dogan; Aski Ellibes Kaya; Cigdem Pulatoglu; Alper Basbug; Murat Yassa
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 8.  Post-Sling Urinary Retention in Women.

Authors:  Dominique R Malacarne; Victor W Nitti
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 3.092

9.  Improvement in dyspareunia after vaginal mesh removal measured by a validated questionnaire.

Authors:  T Grisales; A L Ackerman; L J Rogo-Gupta; L Kwan; S Raz; L V Rodriguez
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Transobturator tape versus retropubic tension-free vaginal tape for stress urinary incontinence: 5-year safety and effectiveness outcomes following a randomised trial.

Authors:  Sue Ross; Selphee Tang; Misha Eliasziw; Doug Lier; Isabelle Girard; Erin Brennand; Lorel Dederer; Philip Jacobs; Magali Robert
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.