Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Aug;24(8):1279-85.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2043-9. Epub 2013 Feb 12.

Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse

Michele Jonsson Funk et al. Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Aug.

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: To estimate the risk of repeat surgery for recurrent prolapse or mesh removal after vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse.

Methods: We utilized longitudinal, adjudicated, healthcare claims from 2005 to 2010 to identify women ≥18 years who underwent an anterior colporrhaphy (CPT 57420) with or without concurrent vaginal mesh (CPT 57267). The primary outcome was repeat surgery for anterior or apical prolapse or for mesh removal/revision; these outcomes were also analyzed separately. We utilized Kaplan-Meier curves to estimate the cumulative risk of each outcome after vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair, adjusted for age, concurrent hysterectomy, and concurrent or recent sling.

Results: We identified 27,809 anterior prolapse surgeries with 49,658 person-years of follow-up. Of those, 6,871 (24.7%) included vaginal mesh. The 5-year cumulative risk of any repeat surgery was significantly higher for vaginal mesh versus native tissue (15.2 % vs 9.8 %, p <0.0001) with a 5-year risk of mesh revision/removal of 5.9%. The 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse was similar between vaginal mesh and native tissue groups (10.4 % vs 9.3 %, p = 0.70. The results of the adjusted Cox model were similar (HR 0.93, 95%CI: 0.83, 1.05).

Conclusions: The use of mesh for anterior prolapse was associated with an increased risk of any repeat surgery, which was driven by surgery for mesh removal. Native tissue and vaginal mesh surgery had similar 5-year risks for surgery for recurrent prolapse.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest None.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. FDA Safety Communication. [Accessed on 12 June 2012];Update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Issued on 13 July 2011. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262435.htm. - PubMed
    1. Dangerous medical devices: most medical implants have never been tested for safety. [Accessed on 9 July 2012];Consumer Reports Magazine. 2012 May; at: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/04/cr-investigates-dang.... - PubMed
    1. FDA Executive Summary: Surgical mesh for the treatment of women with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. [Accessed on 12 June 2012];2011 Sep 8–9; http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMateria....
    1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–506. - PubMed
    1. Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–1836. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources