Risk factors for mesh complications after trocar guided transvaginal mesh kit repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse

Effects of Obesity on Urogynecologic Prolapse Surgery Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery in patients from various body mass index (BMI) categories to determine the association between obesity and surgical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 12, 2022; ClinicalTrials.gov was searched in September 2022 (PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022326255). Randomized and nonrandomized studies of urogynecologic POP surgery outcomes were accepted in which categories of BMI or obesity were compared.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

In total, 9,037 abstracts were screened; 759 abstracts were identified for full-text screening, and 31 articles were accepted for inclusion and data were extracted.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, and outcomes, including subjective outcomes, objective outcomes, and complications. Outcomes were compared among obesity categories (eg, BMI 30-34.9, 35-40, higher than 40), and meta-analysis was performed among different surgical approaches. Individual studies reported varying results as to whether obesity affects surgical outcomes. By meta-analysis, obesity (BMI 30 or higher) is associated with an increased odds of objective prolapse recurrence after vaginal prolapse repair (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI, 1.14-1.67) and after prolapse repair from any surgical approach (OR 1.31, 95% CI, 1.12-1.53) and with complications such as mesh exposure after both vaginal and laparoscopic POP repair (OR 2.10, 95% CI, 1.01-4.39).

CONCLUSION

Obesity is associated with increased likelihood of prolapse recurrence and mesh complications after POP repair.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022326255.

Predictors of cure and overactive bladder syndrome after a mid-urethral sling procedure in women with stress urinary incontinence

OBJECTIVES

To determine predictive factors for the cure of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or persisting or de novo overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) after a mid-urethral sling procedure (MUS) for women with SUI, especially for menopausal women.

STUDY DESIGN

All women who had consecutively received MUS for SUI between January 2008 and July 2019 in a tertiary referral center were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model or logistic regression analysis was used to assess the predictors of cure and persisting or de novo OAB after MUS.

RESULTS

A total of 385 women had undergone MUS, of whom 265 (68.8%) were menopausal. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model revealed that age (hazard ratio = 1.04), and preoperative detrusor overactivity (hazard ratio = 2.26) were independent predictors of persisting/recurrent SUI. Among the 216 women with preoperative OAB, 109 (50.5%) experienced resolution of their OAB after MUS; and among 169 women without preoperative OAB, twenty-five (14.8%) women developed de novo OAB after MUS (p < 0.0001). Preoperative OAB (hazard ratio = 3.97), small voided volume (hazard ratio = 0.83), and preoperative detrusor overactivity (hazard ratio = 1.62) were predictors of postoperative OAB. In addition, six (1.6%) women had mesh extrusion. Parity (odds ratio = 2.08) was the sole predictor of mesh extrusion. Menopause (hazard ratio = 1.69) was a predictor of postoperative OAB in the univariate analysis. However, menopause was not a predictor of cure or OAB in the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Age and preoperative detrusor overactivity were independent predictors of persisting/recurrent SUI. In addition, preoperative OAB, small voided volume, and preoperative detrusor overactivity were predictors of postoperative OAB. These findings could serve as a guide for preoperative consultation for MUS.

Host-biomaterial interactions in mesh complications after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery

Polypropylene (PPL) mesh is widely used in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery for prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. However, some women, particularly those treated using transvaginal PPL mesh placement for prolapse, experience intractable pain and mesh exposure or extrusion. Explanted tissue from patients with complications following transvaginal implantation of mesh is typified by a dense fibrous capsule with an immune cell-rich infiltrate, suggesting that the host immune response has a role in transvaginal PPL mesh complications through the separate contributions of the host (patient), the biological niche within which the material is implanted and biomaterial properties of the mesh. This immune response might be strongly influenced by both the baseline inflammatory status of the patient, surgical technique and experience, and the unique hormonal, immune and microbial tissue niche of the vagina. Mesh porosity, surface area and stiffness also might have an effect on the immune and tissue response to transvaginal mesh placement. Thus, a regulatory pathway is needed for mesh development that recognizes the roles of host and biological factors in driving the immune response to mesh, as well as mandatory mesh registries and the longitudinal surveillance of patients.

Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare long-term effects of high-volume surgery at a single-center to multicenter use when using a mesh-capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair.

Methods

Five years after surgery 101 (88%) at the single center were compared with 164 (81.2%) in the multicenter trial. Outcome measurements included clinical examination, prolapse-specific symptom questionnaires [Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire—short form (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)] and pain estimation by VAS (0–10).

Results

Optimal apical segment outcome was 95% in the single- compared to 83.3% in the multicenter study (p < 0.001). POP recurrence in the anterior and posterior walls (POP-Q, Ba and Bp ≥ 0) was more common at the multicenter as compared to the single center [(19.8% vs 5.4%) and (26% vs 2.7%), (p < 0.001)]. Reoperations for POP and mesh-related complications were more frequent in the multicenter study [31/202 (15.3%) vs 7/116 (6.1%), p < 0.001]. Total PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 scores were comparable between the cohorts. There were no significant differences in overall pain scores in-between the cohorts during follow-up. At the single center, 1/81 patients (1.2%) had VAS 7/10, i.e. severe pain, as compared to 3/131 (2.3%) in the multicenter study (p = 0.277).

Conclusions

Despite the high objective and subjective long-term effectiveness of the procedure in both regular use, and at a high-volume center, centralizing the use of a standardized capturing-device guided transvaginal mesh for POP repair reduced secondary interventions by more than half.

No. 351-Transvaginal Mesh Procedures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

OBJECTIVE

This guideline reviews the evidence related to the risks and benefits of using transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repairs in order to update recommendations initially made in 2011.

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists, residents, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with pelvic organ prolapse.

TARGET POPULATION

Adult women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse considering surgery and those who have previously undergone transvaginal mesh procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

OPTIONS

The discussion relates to transvaginal mesh procedures compared with other surgical options for pelvic organ prolapse (mainly about vaginal native tissue repairs and minimally about other alternatives such as biological and absorbable vaginal mesh and abdominally placed surgical mesh).

OUTCOMES

The outcomes of interest are objective and subjective success rates and intraoperative and postoperative complications, such as adjacent organ injury (urinary, gastrointestinal), infection, hematoma/bleeding, vaginal mesh exposure, persistent pain, dyspareunia, de novo stress urinary incontinence, and reoperation.

EVIDENCE

PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Database, and EMBASE were searched using the key words pelvic organ prolapse/surgery*, prolapse/surgery*, surgical mesh, surgical mesh*/adverse effects, transvaginal mesh, and pelvic organ prolapse.

RESULTS

were restricted to English or French language and human research. Articles obtained through this search strategy were included until the end of June 2016. Pertinent new studies were added up to September 2016. Grey literature was not searched. Clinical practice guidelines and guidelines of specialty societies were reviewed. Systematic reviews were included when available. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included when evidence for the outcome of interest or in the target population was not available from systematic reviews. New studies not yet included in systematic reviews were also included. Only publications with study groups larger than 20 individuals were selected because this criterion was used in the largest meta-analysis referenced in this guideline. A total of 1470 studies were obtained; after selecting only applicable studies and excluding duplicates, 68 manuscripts were reviewed and included.

VALUES

The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed upon by the principal authors and members of the Urogynaecology Committee. The Board of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology framework. The Summary of Findings is available upon request.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND/OR COSTS

It is expected that this guideline will benefit women with pelvic organ prolapse by ensuring that health care providers are aware of outcomes related to transvaginal mesh procedures and steps in the management of related complications. This should guide patient-informed consent before such procedures are undertaken. The benefits clearly outweigh the potential harms or costs of implementation of this guideline, although no direct harms or costs are identified.

GUIDELINE UPDATE

Evidence will be reviewed 5 years after publication to decide whether all or part of the guideline should be updated. However, if important new evidence is published prior to the 5-year cycle, the review process may be accelerated for a more rapid update of some recommendations.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Safety of Mesh for Vaginal Cystocele Repair: Analysis of National Patient Characteristics and Complications

PURPOSE

The use of mesh in vaginal cystocele repair has decreased. We analyzed the ACS NSQIP® (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project) database to compare outcomes of repairs with and without mesh.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CPT was used to identify patients who underwent cystocele repair with and without mesh from 2006 to 2013. Patient characteristics and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified 6,849 patients, of whom 5,667 (82.5%) underwent native tissue repair and 1,182 (17.5%) underwent repair with mesh. Patients who received mesh were older (mean ± SD age 64 ± 11 vs 60 ± 12 years, p <0.001) and more had comorbidities (56% vs 47%, p <0.001). Mean mesh vs nonmesh operative time (97 ± 67 vs 95 ± 53 minutes, p = 0.2) and mean length of stay (1.3 ± 2.4 vs 1.4 ± 1.3 days, p = 0.2) were similar in the 2 groups. Urinary tract infection was the most common complication in cases without vs with mesh (3.8% vs 3.5%). Mesh procedure rates of mortality (0% vs 0.3%, p = 0.04) and overall surgical complications (1.8% vs 3.9% p <0.001) were higher. On multivariate analysis ASA® class 3 or greater (OR 1.4, p = 0.01), longer operative time (OR 1.004, p <0.001) and mesh (OR 1.32, p = 0.05) were associated with greater morbidity. Patient comorbidities, surgeon specialty and concomitant procedures did not confer an increased risk of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Native tissue repair is performed more commonly than mesh repair. ASA class, operative time and mesh use are associated with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity. These results suggest an increased risk of complications when using mesh in vaginal anterior repair, although the overall risk in each procedure was low.

Seeking new surgical predictors of mesh exposure after transvaginal mesh repair

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to explore new preventable risk factors for mesh exposure.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 92 consecutive patients treated with transvaginal mesh (TVM) in the urogynecological unit of our university hospital. An analysis of perioperative predictors was conducted in patients after vaginal repairs using a type 1 mesh. Mesh complications were recorded according to International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) definitions. Mesh-exposure-free durations were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between different closure techniques using log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HR) of predictors for mesh exposure were estimated by univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

The median surveillance interval was 24.1 months. Two late occurrences were found beyond 1 year post operation. No statistically significant correlation was observed between mesh exposure and concomitant hysterectomy. Exposure risks were significantly higher in patients with interrupted whole-layer closure in univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, hematoma [HR 5.42, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.26-23.35, P = 0.024), Prolift mesh (HR 5.52, 95 % CI 1.15-26.53, P = 0.033), and interrupted whole-layer closure (HR 7.02, 95 % CI 1.62-30.53, P = 0.009) were the strongest predictors of mesh exposure.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate the risks of mesh exposure and reoperation may be prevented by avoiding hematoma, large amount of mesh, or interrupted whole-layer closure in TVM surgeries. If these risk factors are prevented, hysterectomy may not be a relative contraindication for TVM use. We also provide evidence regarding mesh exposure and the necessity for more than 1 year of follow-up and preoperative counselling.

Anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the anatomical cure rate and complications related to collagen-coated mesh for cystocele, compared with a conventional anterior colporrhaphy.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled study.

SETTING

Six departments of obstetrics and gynaecology in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark.

POPULATION

Women aged 55 years or older, referred for surgery with a prolapse of the anterior vaginal wall of stage 2 or higher.

METHODS

Women scheduled for primary cystocoele surgery were randomised to either anterior colporrhaphy or a collagen-coated Prolene mesh. Power analysis indicated that 130 patients had to be randomised. All patients were evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) measurement. Quality of life, symptoms, and sexual function were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was objective cure, defined as prolapse below POP-Q stage 2 at the 12-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, symptoms, and presence (or not) of complications.

RESULTS

In total, 161 women were randomised to either anterior colporrhaphy or mesh (participant ages 64.9 ± 6.4 years versus 64.7 ± 6.6 years, respectively; mean ± SD). The objective cure rate was 39.8% (95% CI 28.6-50.9%) in the anterior colporrhaphy group, compared with 88.1% (95% CI 80.7-95.6%) in the mesh group (P < 0.001). Vaginal mesh exposure occurred in ten women (13.3%) and dyspareunia occurred in two women (2.7%, not significant) in the mesh group at the 12-months follow-up. Questionnaires revealed no difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates a significantly improved objective cure rate associated with a high exposure rate among women with mesh surgery as opposed to conventional surgery.

Changes in prolapse surgery trends relative to FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

In 2008 and 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released notifications regarding vaginal mesh. In describing prolapse surgery trends over time, we predicted vaginal mesh use would decrease and native tissue repairs would increase.

METHODS

Operative reports were reviewed for all prolapse repairs performed from 2008 to 2011 at our large regional hospital system. The number of each type of prolapse repair was determined per quarter year and expressed as a percentage of all repairs. Surgical trends were examined focusing on changes with respect to the release of two FDA notifications. We used linear regression to analyze surgical trends and chi-square for demographic comparisons.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred and eleven women underwent 1,385 prolapse procedures. Mean age was 64 ± 12, and 70 % had stage III prolapse. Vaginal mesh procedures declined over time (p = 0.001), comprising 27 % of repairs in early 2008, 15 % at the first FDA notification, 5 % by the second FDA notification, and 2 % at the end of 2011. The percentage of native tissue anterior/posterior repairs (p < 0.001) and apical suspensions (p = 0.007) increased, whereas colpocleisis remained constant (p = 0.475). Despite an overall decrease in open sacral colpopexies (p < 0.001), an initial increase was seen around the first FDA notification. We adopted laparoscopic/robotic techniques around this time, and the percentage of minimally invasive sacral colpopexies steadily increased thereafter (p < 0.001). All sacral colpopexies combined as a group declined over time (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment of prolapse continues to evolve. Over a 4-year period encompassing two FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh and the introduction of laparoscopic/robotic techniques, we performed fewer vaginal mesh procedures and more native tissue repairs and minimally invasive sacral colpopexies.