Martino Maria Zacche1, Sambit Mukhopadhyay2, Ilias Giarenis2. 1. Department of Urogynaecology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK. m.zacche@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urogynaecology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Women have a lifetime risk of undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery of 11-19%. Traditional native tissue repairs are associated with reoperation rates of approximately 11% after 20 years. Surgery with mesh augmentation was introduced to improve anatomic outcomes. However, the use of synthetic meshes in urogynaecological procedures has been scrutinised by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by the European Commission (SCENIHR). We aimed to review trends in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery in England. METHODS: Data were collected from the national hospital episode statistics database. Procedure and interventions-4 character tables were used to quantify POP operations. Annual reports from 2005 to 2016 were considered. RESULTS: The total number of POP procedures increased from 2005, reaching a peak in 2014 (N = 29,228). With regard to vaginal prolapse, native tissue repairs represented more than 90% of the procedures, whereas surgical meshes were considered in a few selected cases. The number of sacrospinous ligament fixations (SSLFs) grew more than 3 times over the years, whereas sacrocolpopexy remained stable. To treat vault prolapse, transvaginal surgical meshes have been progressively abandoned. We also noted a steady increase in uterine-sparing, and obliterative procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Following FDA and SCENIHR warnings, a positive trend for meshes has only been seen in uterine-sparing surgery. Native tissue repairs constitute the vast majority of POP operations. SSLFs have been increasingly performed to achieve apical support. Urogynaecologists' training should take into account shifts in surgical practice.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Women have a lifetime risk of undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery of 11-19%. Traditional native tissue repairs are associated with reoperation rates of approximately 11% after 20 years. Surgery with mesh augmentation was introduced to improve anatomic outcomes. However, the use of synthetic meshes in urogynaecological procedures has been scrutinised by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by the European Commission (SCENIHR). We aimed to review trends in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery in England. METHODS: Data were collected from the national hospital episode statistics database. Procedure and interventions-4 character tables were used to quantify POP operations. Annual reports from 2005 to 2016 were considered. RESULTS: The total number of POP procedures increased from 2005, reaching a peak in 2014 (N = 29,228). With regard to vaginal prolapse, native tissue repairs represented more than 90% of the procedures, whereas surgical meshes were considered in a few selected cases. The number of sacrospinous ligament fixations (SSLFs) grew more than 3 times over the years, whereas sacrocolpopexy remained stable. To treat vault prolapse, transvaginal surgical meshes have been progressively abandoned. We also noted a steady increase in uterine-sparing, and obliterative procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Following FDA and SCENIHR warnings, a positive trend for meshes has only been seen in uterine-sparing surgery. Native tissue repairs constitute the vast majority of POP operations. SSLFs have been increasingly performed to achieve apical support. Urogynaecologists' training should take into account shifts in surgical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Mesh; Pelvic organ prolapse; Surgery; Trends
Authors: Teresa Mascarenhas; Miguel Mascarenhas-Saraiva; Amélia Ricon-Ferraz; Paula Nogueira; Fernando Lopes; Alberto Freitas Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-08-16 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Alex Mowat; Vivien Wong; Judith Goh; Hannah Krause; Anita Pelecanos; Peta Higgs Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Nicole B Korbly; Nadine C Kassis; Meadow M Good; Monica L Richardson; Nicole M Book; Sallis Yip; Docile Saguan; Carey Gross; Janelle Evans; Vrishali V Lopes; Heidi S Harvie; Vivian W Sung Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Laura C Skoczylas; Lindsay C Turner; Li Wang; Daniel G Winger; Jonathan P Shepherd Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Georgina Baines; Natalia Price; Helen Jefferis; Rufus Cartwright; Simon R Jackson Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Katarzyna Skorupska; Tomasz Rechberger; Michał Bogusiewicz; Aneta Adamiak-Godlewska; Agnieszka Kwiatkowska; Paweł Miotła Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Sascha F M Schulten; Renée J Detollenaere; Jelle Stekelenburg; Joanna IntHout; Kirsten B Kluivers; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-09-10