Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse
- PMID: 23400940
- PMCID: PMC3894057
- DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2043-9
Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse
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.
Conflict of interest statement
Similar articles
-
Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;(4):CD004014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 30;11:CD004014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub6. PMID: 23633316 Updated. Review.
-
Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 9;2(2):CD012079. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012079. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Mar 13;3:CD012079. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012079.pub2. PMID: 26858090 Free PMC article. Updated. Review.
-
Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 1;10(10):CD012376. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Jul 26;7:CD012376. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2. PMID: 27696355 Free PMC article. Updated. Review.
-
Native tissue repair or transvaginal mesh for recurrent vaginal prolapse: what are the long-term outcomes?Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Sep;27(9):1313-20. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3069-6. Epub 2016 Jun 20. Int Urogynecol J. 2016. PMID: 27324758
-
Association between method of pelvic organ prolapse repair involving the vaginal apex and re-operation: a population-based, retrospective cohort study.Int Urogynecol J. 2019 Apr;30(4):537-544. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3792-2. Epub 2018 Oct 16. Int Urogynecol J. 2019. PMID: 30327850
Cited by
-
Impact on Sexual Function and Wish for Subsequent Pregnancy after Uterus-Preserving Prolapse Surgery in Premenopausal Women.J Clin Med. 2024 Jul 13;13(14):4105. doi: 10.3390/jcm13144105. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 39064144 Free PMC article.
-
Prevalence and surgical outcomes of stage 3 and 4 pelvic organs prolapse in Jimma university medical center, south west Ethiopia.BMC Womens Health. 2022 Oct 7;22(1):410. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01992-8. BMC Womens Health. 2022. PMID: 36207709 Free PMC article.
-
How is pain associated with pelvic mesh implants measured? Refinement of the construct and a scoping review of current assessment tools.BMC Womens Health. 2022 Sep 30;22(1):396. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01977-7. BMC Womens Health. 2022. PMID: 36180841 Free PMC article. Review.
-
LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.Int Urogynecol J. 2020 Feb;31(2):381-384. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-03969-y. Epub 2019 May 8. Int Urogynecol J. 2020. PMID: 31069411
-
Cumulative Incidence of a Subsequent Surgery After Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Procedure.Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;129(6):1124-1130. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002051. Obstet Gynecol. 2017. PMID: 28486368 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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....
-
- 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
-
- 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
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
