Literature DB >> 28150032

Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center.

Sophie Warembourg1, Majd Labaki2, Renaud de Tayrac2, Pierre Costa3, Brigitte Fatton2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The use of mesh in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery has become a widespread treatment option, but carries a risk of specific complications. The objective was to report the rate and type of reoperation for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in an urogynecological referral center over a period of 8 years.
METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out including all patients operated for a mesh complication after prolapse surgery between September 2006 and September 2014 in the urogynecology unit in Nîmes hospital.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine mesh complications were recorded among the 67 patients included. Surgical treatment of mesh-related complications accounted for 7% of all pelvic surgeries performed in our center. Thirty-two patients (47.8%) were referred from other centers and 35 patients (52.2%) were initially operated in our unit. The global rate of reintervention for mesh-related complications after prolapse repair performed in our unit was 2.8%. Of 69 mesh complications, 48 patients (71.6%) had transvaginal mesh (TVM) and 19 patients (28.4%) sacrocolpopexy (SCP). The indication for surgery was a symptomatic or large vaginal erosion (47.8%), symptomatic mesh contraction (20.3%), and infection (11.6%). The most frequent primary symptom was pelvic/perineal pain or dyspareunia (33.3% of cases). The mean time between initial mesh surgery and the reoperation for a complication was 33.4 months (95% CI, 24.5 to 42.2). Eleven patients (15.9%) required several interventions. In total, 77.9% of patients experienced complete recovery of symptoms after surgical management.
CONCLUSION: In a referral center the global rate of reinterventions for mesh-related complications after POP repair is 2.8%. The surgical treatment of mesh complications appears to be a safe and effective procedure with cure of the symptoms in most cases.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pelvic organ prolapse; Pelvic pain; Post-operative complication; Sacrocolpopexy; Trans-vaginal mesh; Vaginal erosion

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28150032     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-3256-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  47 in total

1.  [Risk factors for prosthesis exposure in treatment of genital prolapse via the vaginal approach].

Authors:  F Belot; P Collinet; P Debodinance; E Ha Duc; J-P Lucot; M Cosson
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Fertil       Date:  2005-12

2.  Mesh removal following transvaginal mesh placement: a case series of 104 operations.

Authors:  Naama Marcus-Braun; Peter von Theobald
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Complications of vaginal mesh: our experience.

Authors:  Bernard Jacquetin; Michel Cosson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2009-06-10

4.  Sacral colpopexy: long-term mesh complications requiring reoperation(s).

Authors:  Emmanuelle Arsene; Géraldine Giraudet; Jean-Philippe Lucot; Chrystèle Rubod; Michel Cosson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Purely transvaginal/perineal management of complications from commercial prolapse kits using a new prostheses/grafts complication classification system.

Authors:  Farzeen Firoozi; Michael S Ingber; Courtenay K Moore; Sandip P Vasavada; Raymond R Rackley; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure.

Authors:  Mariëlla I Withagen; Mark E Vierhout; Jan C Hendriks; Kirsten B Kluivers; Alfredo L Milani
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair: retrospective single-center study including 524 patients with 3 years' median follow-up.

Authors:  Laurent de Landsheere; Sharif Ismail; Jean-Philippe Lucot; Valérie Deken; Jean-Michel Foidart; Michel Cosson
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-07-30       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care.

Authors:  S E Swift
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Managing chronic pelvic pain following reconstructive pelvic surgery with transvaginal mesh.

Authors:  Anthony N Gyang; Jessica B Feranec; Rakesh C Patel; Georgine M Lamvu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Surgical management of mesh-related complications after prior pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh.

Authors:  Myrthe M Tijdink; Mark E Vierhout; John P Heesakkers; Mariëlla I J Withagen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 2.894

View more
  12 in total

1.  Is it worthwhile to perform closure of the pelvic peritoneum in laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal resection?

Authors:  Yu Shen; Tinghan Yang; Hanjiang Zeng; Wenjian Meng; Ziqiang Wang
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Mayuko Kusuda; Keiko Kagami; Ikumi Takahashi; Takahiro Nozaki; Ikuko Sakamoto
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 2.030

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.  Combined rectopexy and sacrocolpopexy is safe for correction of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Cristina B Geltzeiler; Elisa H Birnbaum; Matthew L Silviera; Matthew G Mutch; Joel Vetter; Paul E Wise; Steven R Hunt; Sean C Glasgow
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  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

6.  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 7.  Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Schachar; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-04

8.  The autologous rectus fascia sheath sacrocolpopexy and sacrohysteropexy, a mesh free alternative in patients with recurrent uterine and vault prolapse: A contemporary series and literature review.

Authors:  Jai Seth; Bogdan Toia; Hazel Ecclestone; Mahreen Pakzad; Rizwan Hamid; Tamsin Greenwell; Jeremy Ockrim
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2019 Apr-Jun

9.  Abnormal vaginal microbiome associated with vaginal mesh complications.

Authors:  Nikolaus Veit-Rubin; Renaud De Tayrac; Rufus Cartwright; Larissa Franklin-Revill; Sophie Warembourg; Catherine Dunyach-Remy; Jean-Philippe Lavigne; Vik Khullar
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2019-08-11       Impact factor: 2.696

10.  Short term complications in mesh augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not higher when compared with native tissue repair.

Authors:  Sarah Kanji; Dante Pascali; Aisling A Clancy
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 1.932

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.