Ericka M Sohlberg1, Kai B Dallas2, Brannon T Weeks2, Christopher S Elliott2, Lisa Rogo-Gupta2,3. 1. Department of Urology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Grant Building S285, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. esohlberg@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Grant Building S285, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: As the long-term complications of synthetic mesh become increasingly apparent, re-evaluation of alternative graft options for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repairs is critical. We sought to compare the long-term reoperation rates of biologic and synthetic grafts in POP repair. METHODS: Using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database, we identified all women who underwent index inpatient POP repair with either a synthetic or biologic graft between 2005 and 2011 in the state of California. ICD-9 and CPT codes were used to identify subsequent surgeries in these patients for either recurrent POP or a graft complication. RESULTS: A total of 14,192 women underwent POP repair with a biologic (14%) or synthetic graft (86%) during the study period. Women with biologic grafts had increased rates of surgery for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (3.6% vs 2.5%, p = 0.01), whereas women with synthetic grafts had higher rates of repeat surgery for a graft complication (3.0 vs 2.0%, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the overall risk of repeat surgery between the groups (5.7% vs 5.6%, p = 0.79). These effects persisted in multivariate modeling. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in a large population-based cohort that biologic grafts are associated with an increased rate of repeat surgery for POP recurrence whereas synthetic mesh is associated with an increased rate of repeat surgery for a graft complication. These competing risks result in an equivalent overall any-cause repeat surgery rate between the groups. These data suggest that neither type of graft should be excluded from use and encourage a personalized risk assessment.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: As the long-term complications of synthetic mesh become increasingly apparent, re-evaluation of alternative graft options for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repairs is critical. We sought to compare the long-term reoperation rates of biologic and synthetic grafts in POP repair. METHODS: Using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database, we identified all women who underwent index inpatient POP repair with either a synthetic or biologic graft between 2005 and 2011 in the state of California. ICD-9 and CPT codes were used to identify subsequent surgeries in these patients for either recurrent POP or a graft complication. RESULTS: A total of 14,192 women underwent POP repair with a biologic (14%) or synthetic graft (86%) during the study period. Women with biologic grafts had increased rates of surgery for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (3.6% vs 2.5%, p = 0.01), whereas women with synthetic grafts had higher rates of repeat surgery for a graft complication (3.0 vs 2.0%, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the overall risk of repeat surgery between the groups (5.7% vs 5.6%, p = 0.79). These effects persisted in multivariate modeling. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate in a large population-based cohort that biologic grafts are associated with an increased rate of repeat surgery for POP recurrence whereas synthetic mesh is associated with an increased rate of repeat surgery for a graft complication. These competing risks result in an equivalent overall any-cause repeat surgery rate between the groups. These data suggest that neither type of graft should be excluded from use and encourage a personalized risk assessment.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biologic graft; Mesh; Pelvic organ prolapse; Synthetic
Authors: Shawn A Menefee; Keisha Y Dyer; Emily S Lukacz; Amanda J Simsiman; Karl M Luber; John N Nguyen Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: P K Sand; S Koduri; R W Lobel; H A Winkler; J Tomezsko; P J Culligan; R Goldberg Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 8.661
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
Authors: Lisa Rogo-Gupta; Larissa V Rodriguez; Mark S Litwin; Thomas J Herzog; Alfred I Neugut; Yu-Shiang Lu; Shlomo Raz; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 7.661
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