Vani Dandolu1, Megumi Akiyama2, Gayle Allenback3, Prathamesh Pathak4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Nevada School of Medicine, 2040 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV, 89102, USA. vdandolu@medicine.nevada.edu. 2. Resident in Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Nevada School of Medicine (UNSOM), Las Vegas, NV, USA. 3. MSOT/L, MPH, GStat, Clinical/Translational Research Data Analyst, UNSOM, Las Vegas, NV, USA. 4. UNSOM, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to quantitate the extent of complications and failure rate for apical prolapse repair with transvaginal mesh (TVM) use versus sacrocolpopexy over a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. METHODS: Truven CCAE and Medicare Supplemental databases 2008-2013 were used for analysis. Patients with apical prolapse repair via transvaginal mesh (TVMR), abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASCP), laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP), or native tissue repair (NTR) and continuously enrolled for years were in the study cohort. Surgical failures were identified by reoperation for any prolapse or subsequent use of pessary. SAS® 9.3 was used for analysis. RESULTS: Mesh removal/revision was reported highest in TVMR (5.1 %), followed by LSCP (1.7 %) and ASCP (1.2 %). In those with concomitant sling, combined rates for mesh/sling revision were high, at 9.0 % in TVMR + sling, 5.6 % in ASCP + sling, and 4.5 % LSCP + sling. Sling-alone cases reported a 3.5 % revision rate. Pelvic pain (16.4-22.7 %) and dyspareunia (5.6-7.5 %) were high in all three approaches for apical prolapse repairs. Reoperation for apical prolapse was more common for TVMR (2.9 %) compared with NTR (2.3 %) [odds ratio (OR) 1.27; confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.47; p 0.002]. Both ASCP and LSCP were superior to NTR (ASCP 1.5 %, OR 0.63, CI 0.46-0.86; p 0.003) and LSCP 1.8 % (OR 0.79, CI 0.62-1.01; p 0.07). Overall prolapse recurrence, as indicated by any compartment surgery for prolapse and/or pessary use, was also noted highest in TVMR (5.9 % OR 1.23, CI 1.11-1.36; p <0.0001). Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexies were slightly superior at 4.0 % overall recurrence (OR 0.83, CI 0.7-0.98); p 0.03). Failure of incontinence surgery was higher when the initial procedure combined prolapse and sling surgery (1.97 %) versus sling alone (1.6 %). CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for apical prolapse is more common with TVMR than with sacrocolpopexies and NTR. Incontinence procedures are more likely to fail when performed along with prolapse repair than when performed alone. When mesh is used for repair, mesh revision is highest with TVMR and lowest with ASCP.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to quantitate the extent of complications and failure rate for apical prolapse repair with transvaginal mesh (TVM) use versus sacrocolpopexy over a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. METHODS: Truven CCAE and Medicare Supplemental databases 2008-2013 were used for analysis. Patients with apical prolapse repair via transvaginal mesh (TVMR), abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASCP), laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP), or native tissue repair (NTR) and continuously enrolled for years were in the study cohort. Surgical failures were identified by reoperation for any prolapse or subsequent use of pessary. SAS® 9.3 was used for analysis. RESULTS: Mesh removal/revision was reported highest in TVMR (5.1 %), followed by LSCP (1.7 %) and ASCP (1.2 %). In those with concomitant sling, combined rates for mesh/sling revision were high, at 9.0 % in TVMR + sling, 5.6 % in ASCP + sling, and 4.5 % LSCP + sling. Sling-alone cases reported a 3.5 % revision rate. Pelvic pain (16.4-22.7 %) and dyspareunia (5.6-7.5 %) were high in all three approaches for apical prolapse repairs. Reoperation for apical prolapse was more common for TVMR (2.9 %) compared with NTR (2.3 %) [odds ratio (OR) 1.27; confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.47; p 0.002]. Both ASCP and LSCP were superior to NTR (ASCP 1.5 %, OR 0.63, CI 0.46-0.86; p 0.003) and LSCP 1.8 % (OR 0.79, CI 0.62-1.01; p 0.07). Overall prolapse recurrence, as indicated by any compartment surgery for prolapse and/or pessary use, was also noted highest in TVMR (5.9 % OR 1.23, CI 1.11-1.36; p <0.0001). Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexies were slightly superior at 4.0 % overall recurrence (OR 0.83, CI 0.7-0.98); p 0.03). Failure of incontinence surgery was higher when the initial procedure combined prolapse and sling surgery (1.97 %) versus sling alone (1.6 %). CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for apical prolapse is more common with TVMR than with sacrocolpopexies and NTR. Incontinence procedures are more likely to fail when performed along with prolapse repair than when performed alone. When mesh is used for repair, mesh revision is highest with TVMR and lowest with ASCP.
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: V Bjelic-Radisic; T Aigmueller; O Preyer; G Ralph; I Geiss; G Müller; P Riss; P Klug; M Konrad; G Wagner; M Medl; W Umek; P Lozano; K Tamussino; A Tammaa Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Reijo Hiltunen; Kari Nieminen; Teuvo Takala; Eila Heiskanen; Mauri Merikari; Kirsti Niemi; Pentti K Heinonen Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Lore Schierlitz; Peter L Dwyer; Anna Rosamilia; Alison De Souza; Christine Murray; Elizabeth Thomas; Richard Hiscock; Chahin Achtari Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Femke van Zanten; Jan J van Iersel; Tim J C Paulides; Paul M Verheijen; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten; Egbert Lenters; Steven E Schraffordt Koops Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.894