Literature DB >> 34331076

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

Sarah Kanji1, Dante Pascali2,3, Aisling A Clancy4,5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Accumulating evidence regarding the negative long-term consequences of transvaginal mesh-based procedures for pelvic organ prolapse has led to a sharp decline in mesh-based procedures. We aimed to evaluate the short-term complications of mesh-based procedures for carefully selected patients with pelvic organ prolapse after Food and Drug Administration warnings.
METHODS: A retrospective database review of the ACS NSQIP database was completed to examine 30-day complications including re-operation, prolonged length of stay, blood transfusion, surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, readmission and wound dehiscence in mesh-augmented and native tissue-based transvaginal procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.
RESULTS: A total of 36,234 patients were included in the analysis, with only 7.1% (2574 women) having mesh-augmented repair. Using a multivariable logistical regression analysis adjusting for confounders, we found that the primary composite outcome (re-operation, hospital stay, blood transfusion and surgical site infection) was less common in the mesh group compared with the native tissue repair group (adjusted OR 0.80, CI 0.67-0.95, p = 0.009). The secondary outcomes (urinary tract infection, re-admission and wound dehiscence) were not different between the group.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that in well-chosen patients, short-term complications are not increased when using transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair.
© 2021. The International Urogynecological Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mesh; Pelvic organ prolapse; Surgical complications

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34331076     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04915-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   1.932


  21 in total

1.  Anterior and middle pelvic organ prolapse repair using a six tension-free strap low weight transvaginal mesh: long-term retrospective monocentric study of 311 patients.

Authors:  Camille Duport; Céline Duperron; Emmanuel Delorme
Journal:  J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod       Date:  2018-11-30

2.  Short-term complications associated with the use of transvaginal mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: Results from a multi-institutional prospectively maintained dataset.

Authors:  Maxx Caveney; Devin Haddad; Catherine Matthews; Gopal Badlani; Majid Mirzazadeh
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 2.696

3.  Risk factors for mesh erosion 3 months following vaginal reconstructive surgery using commercial kits vs. fashioned mesh-augmented vaginal repairs.

Authors:  Peter S Finamore; Karolynn T Echols; Krystal Hunter; Howard B Goldstein; Adam S Holzberg; Babak Vakili
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 2.894

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

Authors:  Sophie Warembourg; Majd Labaki; Renaud de Tayrac; Pierre Costa; Brigitte Fatton
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Perioperative morbi-mortality after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in a large French national database from gynecologist surgeons.

Authors:  Isabelle Le Teuff; Majd Labaki; Pascale Fabbro-Peray; Philippe Debodinance; Bernard Jacquetin; Jean Marty; Vincent Letouzey; Georges Eglin; Renaud de Tayrac
Journal:  J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod       Date:  2019-05-09

6.  Transvaginal surgery using self-cut mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: 3-year clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Sheryl Ghia Gonocruz; Tokumasa Hayashi; Shino Tokiwa; Yugo Sawada; Yoshiyuki Okada; Yuko Yoshio; Ratih Krisna; Yasuhide Kitagawa; Yukiko Shimizu; Masayoshi Nomura
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 3.369

7.  Mesh complications and failure rates after transvaginal mesh repair compared with abdominal or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and to native tissue repair in treating apical prolapse.

Authors:  Vani Dandolu; Megumi Akiyama; Gayle Allenback; Prathamesh Pathak
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Short-term surgical outcomes and characteristics of patients with mesh complications from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgery.

Authors:  Jessica Hammett; Ann Peters; Elisa Trowbridge; Kathie Hullfish
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  No. 351-Transvaginal Mesh Procedures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Authors:  Maryse Larouche; Roxana Geoffrion; Jens-Erik Walter
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2017-11

Review 10.  The international discussion and the new regulations concerning transvaginal mesh implants in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Nathalie Ng-Stollmann; Christian Fünfgeld; Boris Gabriel; Achim Niesel
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 2.894

View more
  1 in total

1.  Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF): an old method with new horizons.

Authors:  Elad Leron; Offer Erez; Polina Shwarzmam; Kaven Baessler
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-06       Impact factor: 2.344

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.