IMPORTANCE: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration uses the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database to evaluate the safety of urogynecologic meshes; however, reports on individual meshes have not been characterized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare complications among available urogynecologic meshes reported to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) of urogynecologic mesh from January 2004 to March 2019, using the Reed Tech Navigator (LexisNexis), which codes MDRs. The percentage of reports containing specific complaints (not an adverse event rate) were compared with χ 2 tests with Dunn-Sidak correction. Correlations with time on market, mesh weight, stiffness, and porosity were determined. RESULTS: The 34,485 reports examined included 6 transvaginal meshes, 4 sacrocolpopexy meshes, and 10 midurethral slings. Most reported events were pain, erosion, and infection. For transvaginal prolapse, less than 10% of Uphold Lite (Boston Scientific) reports contained pain or erosion versus greater than 90% of Prolift/Prolift+M (Ethicon, P < 0.001). For sacrocolpopexy mesh, greater than 90% of Gynemesh (Ethicon; Prolift in vaginal form) reports included erosion and pain versus less than 60% for Artisyn (Ethicon), Restorelle (Colpoplast), and Upsylon (Boston Scientific, P < 0.0001). For slings, Gynecare TVT Obturator had the highest proportion of erosion and pain complaints. Heavier sling meshes had more reports. When Ascend (Caldera Medical), an outlier with only 5 reports, was excluded, transvaginal mesh stiffness correlated strongly with number of reports. For transvaginal meshes, number of reports correlated with time on market (ρ = 0.8, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Individual meshes have different properties with different complication profiles, which should inform mesh development and use. Gynemesh MDRs included pain and erosion more frequently than others. Comprehensive registries are needed.
IMPORTANCE: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration uses the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database to evaluate the safety of urogynecologic meshes; however, reports on individual meshes have not been characterized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare complications among available urogynecologic meshes reported to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) of urogynecologic mesh from January 2004 to March 2019, using the Reed Tech Navigator (LexisNexis), which codes MDRs. The percentage of reports containing specific complaints (not an adverse event rate) were compared with χ 2 tests with Dunn-Sidak correction. Correlations with time on market, mesh weight, stiffness, and porosity were determined. RESULTS: The 34,485 reports examined included 6 transvaginal meshes, 4 sacrocolpopexy meshes, and 10 midurethral slings. Most reported events were pain, erosion, and infection. For transvaginal prolapse, less than 10% of Uphold Lite (Boston Scientific) reports contained pain or erosion versus greater than 90% of Prolift/Prolift+M (Ethicon, P < 0.001). For sacrocolpopexy mesh, greater than 90% of Gynemesh (Ethicon; Prolift in vaginal form) reports included erosion and pain versus less than 60% for Artisyn (Ethicon), Restorelle (Colpoplast), and Upsylon (Boston Scientific, P < 0.0001). For slings, Gynecare TVT Obturator had the highest proportion of erosion and pain complaints. Heavier sling meshes had more reports. When Ascend (Caldera Medical), an outlier with only 5 reports, was excluded, transvaginal mesh stiffness correlated strongly with number of reports. For transvaginal meshes, number of reports correlated with time on market (ρ = 0.8, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Individual meshes have different properties with different complication profiles, which should inform mesh development and use. Gynemesh MDRs included pain and erosion more frequently than others. Comprehensive registries are needed.
Authors: Kari Nieminen; Reijo Hiltunen; Teuvo Takala; Eila Heiskanen; Mauri Merikari; Kirsti Niemi; Pentti K Heinonen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Geoffrey Cundiff; Holly Richter; Marie Gantz; Paul Fine; Shawn Menefee; Beri Ridgeway; Anthony Visco; Lauren Klein Warren; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Charles W Nager; Anthony G Visco; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Rebecca G Rogers; Heidi S Harvie; Halina M Zyczynski; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Scott Grey; Amaanti Sridhar; Dennis Wallace Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272