INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our objective was to compare mesh exposure rates (4 months and 1 year) after total (TLH) vs supracervical (SLH) laparoscopic hysterectomy at time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (SCP). Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications and midurethral mesh exposure rates. METHODS: This a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care referral center from 2011 to 2018. Subjects were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Demographics, operative characteristics, and perioperative complications were abstracted from medical records. RESULTS: Four hundred three women met the inclusion criteria: 91 SLH+SCP and 312 TLH+SCP. Median follow-up was 52 weeks with an overall mesh exposure rate of 1.5%. Follow-up was available for 90% of patients at 4 months and 51% at 1 year. Half of patients had lightweight mesh (n = 203), and half had ultralightweight mesh (n = 200). Vaginal mesh fixation was performed with permanent suture in 86% (n = 344) and delayed absorbable suture in 14% (n = 56) of patients. At 4 months, vaginal mesh exposure rates did not differ between groups (0% SLH vs 1% TLH, p = 1.00). All mesh exposures in the study period occurred with lightweight mesh in the TLH arm. No differences were noted in 1-year mesh exposure rates, 30-day perioperative complications (p = 0.57), or midurethral mesh exposure rates at 4 months (p = 0.35) and 1 year (p = 1.00) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term mesh exposure following SCP with ultralightweight and lightweight polypropylene mesh is rare regardless of type of hysterectomy and much lower than reported in earlier studies with heavier weight mesh. These data suggest TLH at the time of SCP is a safe option in appropriately counseled patients.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our objective was to compare mesh exposure rates (4 months and 1 year) after total (TLH) vs supracervical (SLH) laparoscopic hysterectomy at time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (SCP). Secondary outcomes included 30-day complications and midurethral mesh exposure rates. METHODS: This a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care referral center from 2011 to 2018. Subjects were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Demographics, operative characteristics, and perioperative complications were abstracted from medical records. RESULTS: Four hundred three women met the inclusion criteria: 91 SLH+SCP and 312 TLH+SCP. Median follow-up was 52 weeks with an overall mesh exposure rate of 1.5%. Follow-up was available for 90% of patients at 4 months and 51% at 1 year. Half of patients had lightweight mesh (n = 203), and half had ultralightweight mesh (n = 200). Vaginal mesh fixation was performed with permanent suture in 86% (n = 344) and delayed absorbable suture in 14% (n = 56) of patients. At 4 months, vaginal mesh exposure rates did not differ between groups (0% SLH vs 1% TLH, p = 1.00). All mesh exposures in the study period occurred with lightweight mesh in the TLH arm. No differences were noted in 1-year mesh exposure rates, 30-day perioperative complications (p = 0.57), or midurethral mesh exposure rates at 4 months (p = 0.35) and 1 year (p = 1.00) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term mesh exposure following SCP with ultralightweight and lightweight polypropylene mesh is rare regardless of type of hysterectomy and much lower than reported in earlier studies with heavier weight mesh. These data suggest TLH at the time of SCP is a safe option in appropriately counseled patients.
Authors: Blake C Osmundsen; Amanda Clark; Crystal Goldsmith; Kerrie Adams; Mary Anna Denman; Renee Edwards; William Thomas Gregory Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: William B Warner; Sonali Vora; Eric A Hurtado; Jeffrey A Welgoss; Nicolette S Horbach; Walter S von Pechmann Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Kimberly Kenton; Elizabeth R Mueller; Christopher Tarney; Catherine Bresee; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Catherine A Matthews; Elizabeth J Geller; Barbara R Henley; Kimberly Kenton; Erinn M Myers; Alexis A Dieter; Brent Parnell; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Margaret G Mueller; Jennifer M Wu Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Andrea K Crane; Elizabeth J Geller; Stephanie Sullivan; Barbara L Robinson; Erinn M Myers; Christine Horton; Catherine A Matthews Journal: South Med J Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 0.954
Authors: Brian J Linder; Sherif A El-Nashar; Alain A Mukwege; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; Deborah J Rhodes; John B Gebhart; Christopher J Klingele; John A Occhino; Emanuel C Trabuco Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Camille P Vaughan; Patricia S Goode; David T Redden; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Alayne D Markland Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Emily R W Davidson; Tonya N Thomas; Erika J Lampert; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Cecile A Ferrando Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 2.894