Ruben D Trochez1, Steven Lane2, Jonathan Duckett3. 1. Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK. ruben.trochez@nhs.net. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. 3. Medway NHS Foundation Trust, Gillingham, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The use of mesh for vaginal prolapse gained popularity during the 1990s. More recently, concerns have been raised regarding the safety of mesh procedures. Mesh can be inserted vaginally, laparoscopically or via an open abdominal route, but there are few data comparing the outcomes. Most previous published data relate to small numbers of procedures. METHODS: This was a review of data submitted to the British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) database of all cases reporting the use of mesh placed vaginally or abdominally (open or laparoscopic) between January 2006 and December 2016. The primary outcome was based on the reported patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I). RESULTS: A total of 6,709 cases of mesh prolapse repair were entered during the study period. Women in the laparoscopic group had a lower BMI and were younger. Significantly more patients in the open group (96.4%) described themselves as very much better or much better compared with the laparoscopic group (91%) and the vaginal mesh group (90.7%; p < 0.001). Only 0.5% of patients reported that they were worse or very much worse. CONCLUSIONS: This dataset suggests that the effectiveness of mesh repair might be good regardless of the route of insertion. The improvement in PGI-I seems to be greatest with open sacrocolpopexy.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The use of mesh for vaginal prolapse gained popularity during the 1990s. More recently, concerns have been raised regarding the safety of mesh procedures. Mesh can be inserted vaginally, laparoscopically or via an open abdominal route, but there are few data comparing the outcomes. Most previous published data relate to small numbers of procedures. METHODS: This was a review of data submitted to the British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) database of all cases reporting the use of mesh placed vaginally or abdominally (open or laparoscopic) between January 2006 and December 2016. The primary outcome was based on the reported patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I). RESULTS: A total of 6,709 cases of mesh prolapse repair were entered during the study period. Women in the laparoscopic group had a lower BMI and were younger. Significantly more patients in the open group (96.4%) described themselves as very much better or much better compared with the laparoscopic group (91%) and the vaginal mesh group (90.7%; p < 0.001). Only 0.5% of patients reported that they were worse or very much worse. CONCLUSIONS: This dataset suggests that the effectiveness of mesh repair might be good regardless of the route of insertion. The improvement in PGI-I seems to be greatest with open sacrocolpopexy.
Authors: Aqsa Khan; Marianna Alperin; Ning Wu; J Quentin Clemens; Emily Dubina; Chris L Pashos; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Cathryn Ma Glazener; Suzanne Breeman; Andrew Elders; Christine Hemming; Kevin G Cooper; Robert M Freeman; Anthony Rb Smith; Fiona Reid; Suzanne Hagen; Isobel Montgomery; Mary Kilonzo; Dwayne Boyers; Alison McDonald; Gladys McPherson; Graeme MacLennan; John Norrie Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert E Gutman; Charles R Rardin; Eric R Sokol; Catherine Matthews; Amy J Park; Cheryl B Iglesia; Roxana Geoffrion; Andrew I Sokol; Mickey Karram; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Joan L Blomquist; Matthew D Barber Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-09-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Priyanka Gupta; James Payne; Kim A Killinger; Michael Ehlert; Jamie Bartley; Jason Gilleran; Judy A Boura; Larry T Sirls Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: R M Freeman; K Pantazis; A Thomson; J Frappell; L Bombieri; P Moran; M Slack; P Scott; M Waterfield Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 2.894