Transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: more FDA concerns--positive reactions are possible

Accreditation of an old surgical technique for stress urinary incontinence: long-term outcomes of modified autologous fascial pubovaginal sling

PURPOSE

To evaluate long-term outcomes of modified autologous fascial pubovaginal sling (AFPVS) in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

METHODS

To evaluate long-term outcomes of modified AFPVS, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of our patients from 2004 to 2015. From 2 decades ago, we have made modifications to classic surgical technique to make it simpler and faster.

RESULTS

199 patients were contacted with mean age of 52 years. The mean follow-up period was 107 months. According to Revised Urinary Incontinence Scale (RUIS) questionnaire, overall success rate was 83.9%. In patients with positive history for SUI surgery, success rate was 73% compared to 87% in those without it. Body mass index was negatively associated with cure rate. We did not encounter any major complications and most of the issues were managed conservatively. Recurrence of SUI occurred in 6 patients (3.5%) after initial improvement.

CONCLUSION

Modified AFPVS is an effective surgical technique for treatment of SUI with high and durable success rate. At the present time with concerns regarding the use of transvaginal synthetic mesh, there is increasing interest and request for modified traditional procedures. It is likely that AFPVS may become more popular in upcoming years.

Mapping the genealogy of medical device predicates in the United States

Background

In the United States, medical devices are regulated and subject to review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be marketed. Low-to-medium risk novel medical devices can be reviewed under the De Novo umbrella before they can proceed to market, and this process can be fairly cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. An alternate faster and less-expensive pathway to going to market is the 510(k) pathway. In this approach, if the device can be shown to be substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to a pre-existing FDA-approved marketed device (or “predicates”), it can be cleared to market. Due to the possibility of daisy-chaining predicate devices, it can very quickly be difficult to unravel the logic and justification of how a particular medical device’s equivalence was established. From patients’ perspective, this minimizes transparency in the process. From a vendor perspective, it can be difficult to determine the right predicate that applies to their device.

Methods

We map the connectivity of various predicates in the medical device field by applying text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques on data publicly made available by the FDA 78000 device summaries were scraped from the US FDA 510(k) database, and a total of 2,721 devices cleared by the 510(k) regulatory pathway in 2020 were used as a specific case study to map the genealogy of medical devices cleared by the FDA. Cosine similarity was used to gauge the degree of substantial equivalence between two medical devices by evaluating their device descriptions and indications for use. Recalls and complaints for predicate devices were extracted from the FDA’s Total Product Life Cycle database using html scraping and web page optical character recognition to determine the similarity between class 1 recalled devices (the most severe form of device recall) and other substantially equivalent devices. A specific product code was used to illustrate the mapping of the genealogy from a De Novo device.

Results and discussion

The ancestral tree for the medical devices cleared in 2020 is vast and sparse, with a large number of devices having only 1–2 predicates. Evaluation of substantial equivalence data from 2003–2020 shows that the standard for substantial equivalence has not changed significantly. Studying the recalls and complaints, shows that the insulin infusion pump had the highest number of complaints, yet none of the recalled devices bore significant degree of text similarity to currently marketed devices. The mapping from the De Novo device case study was used to develop an ancestry map from the recalled predicate (recalled due to design flaws) to current substantially equivalent products in the market.

Conclusions

Besides enabling a better understanding of the risks and benefits of the 510(k) process, mapping of connectivity of various predicates could help increase consumer confidence in the medical devices that are currently in the marketplace.

No mesh versus mesh in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: prospective, randomised, controlled trial, long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of anterior colporrhaphy (AC) versus transvaginal polypropylene mesh (PM) for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse (AVWP) at long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Prospective and randomized controlled trial, 100 women with AVWP stage ≥ II assessed by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) underwent AC (control group) or PM insertion (mesh group). At baseline and at 60-month follow-up, safety profile, anatomical outcomes by POP-Q measurements and staging, subjective outcomes and quality of life (QoL) impact by ICIQ (SF and VV) and OAB-V8 questionnaires were assessed RESULTS: 76 women completed the study, 43 in Control versus 33 in Mesh group. Significant improvements were observed in all variables between the 2 times in each group (p < 0.0001), without differences between groups. Objective cure (POP-Q Ba ≤ - 2 and Ba ≤ - 1) occurred in 22 and 36 (51.2 and 83.7%) versus 23 and 31 (69.7 and 93.9%), p = 0.10 and 0.29; and subjective cure (VSS, no vaginal symptom) in 21 (48.8%) versus 17 (51.5%), p = 0.82, respectively, at 60-month follow-up. When adjusted for the other variables, Mesh group showed worse QoL impact due to subjective vaginal symptoms (odds ratio 3.99, CI 95% 1.13; 14.13). AVW asymptomatic mesh exposure occurred in 2 patients (6.06%) in the Mesh group.

CONCLUSIONS

AC and PM provided good overall objective and subjective outcomes for a minimum 60-month follow-up. Vaginal and urinary symptoms improved post-operatively in both groups. Mesh group experienced four times more negative impact on QoL compared to Control at 60-month follow-up.

Treatment of Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse Using Transvaginal Anterior Mesh With Apical Fixation: A Prospective Multicenter Study With up to 2 Years of Follow-up

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a surgical polypropylene mesh for correction of anterior vaginal prolapse, with or without apical defects, by providing simultaneous reinforcement at the anterior and apical aspects of the vagina with a single-incision approach.

Methods

This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study involving women with baseline stage ≥2 anterior and/or apical vaginal wall prolapse according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. The primary endpoint was defined as achievement of POP-Q stage ≤1 status. Additionally, patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS). The device under evaluation was Calistar A, which is fixed posteriorly to the sacrospinous ligaments with a novel tissue-anchoring system (TAS) and anteriorly to the obturator internus muscles. Postoperative follow-ups were scheduled at 7 days and at 6, 12, and 24 months.

Results

Ninety-seven women were treated and assessed for the primary outcome. They were followed for up to 2 years (n=43), with a median of 12 months. Objective cure was achieved in 86 of the 97 patients (88.7%) (P<0.0005). The mean reduction in the ICIQ-VS scores was in the range of 70%–90% for every time point (P<0.05). No bleeding or surgical revision was reported. Mesh exposure occurred in 7 patients (7.2%), urinary retention in 5 (5.2%), de novo dyspareunia in 3 (3.1%), and urinary tract infections in 7 (7.2%).

Conclusions

This midterm follow-up showed that apical and anterior vaginal reinforcement with a polypropylene implant fixed with a TAS provided good anatomical correction, with no major complications.

The regulatory ancestral network of surgical meshes

Background

All surgical meshes entering the U.S. market have been cleared for clinical use by the 510(k) process of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in which devices simply require proof of “substantial equivalence” to predicate devices, without the need for clinical trials. However, recalled meshes associated with adverse effects may, indirectly, continue to serve as predicates for new devices raising concerns over the safety of the 510(k) route.

Methodology

Here we assess the potential magnitude of this problem by determining the ancestral network of equivalence claims linking recently cleared surgical meshes. Using the FDA website we identified all surgical meshes cleared by the 510(k) route between January 2013 and December 2015 along with all listed predicates for these devices. Using a network approach, we trace the ancestry of predicates across multiple generations of equivalence claims and identify those meshes connected to devices that have since recalled from the market along with the reason for their recall.

Conclusions

We find that the 77 surgical meshes cleared between 2013 and 2015 are based on 771 interconnected predicate claims of equivalence from 400 other devices. The vast majority of these devices (97%) are descended from only six surgical meshes that were present on the market prior to 1976. One of these ancestral meshes alone, provided the basis of 183 subsequent devices. Furthermore, we show that 16% of recently cleared devices are connected through equivalence claims to the 3 predicate meshes that have been recalled for design and material related flaws causing serious adverse events. Taken together, our results show that surgical meshes are connected through a tangled web of equivalency claims and many meshes recently cleared by the FDA have connections through chains of equivalency to devices which have been recalled from the market due to concerns over clinical safety. These findings raise concerns over the efficacy of the 510(k) route in ensuring patient safety.

Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT)

BACKGROUND

The use of transvaginal mesh and biological graft material in prolapse surgery is controversial and has led to a number of enquiries into their safety and efficacy. Existing trials of these augmentations are individually too small to be conclusive. We aimed to compare the outcomes of prolapse repair involving either synthetic mesh inlays or biological grafts against standard repair in women.

METHODS

We did two pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trials for our study (PROSPECT [PROlapse Surgery: Pragmatic Evaluation and randomised Controlled Trials]) in 35 centres (a mix of secondary and tertiary referral hospitals) in the UK. We recruited women undergoing primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery by 65 gynaecological surgeons in these centres. We randomly assigned participants by a remote web-based randomisation system to one of the two trials: comparing standard (native tissue) repair alone with standard repair augmented with either synthetic mesh (the mesh trial) or biological graft (the graft trial). We assigned women (1:1:1 or 1:1) within three strata: assigned to one of the three treatment options, comparison of standard repair with mesh, and comparison of standard repair with graft. Participants, ward staff, and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation where possible; masking was obviously not possible for the surgeon. Follow-up was for 2 years after the surgery; the primary outcomes, measured at 1 year and 2 years, were participant-reported prolapse symptoms (i.e. the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score [POP-SS]) and condition-specific (ie, prolapse-related) quality-of-life scores, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN60695184.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 8, 2010, and Aug 30, 2013, we randomly allocated 1352 women to treatment, of whom 1348 were included in the analysis. 865 women were included in the mesh trial (430 to standard repair alone, 435 to mesh augmentation) and 735 were included in the graft trial (367 to standard repair alone, 368 to graft augmentation). Because the analyses were carried out separately for each trial (mesh trial and graft trial) some women in the standard repair arm assigned to all treatment options were included in the standard repair group of both trials. 23 of these women did not receive any surgery (15 in the mesh trial, 13 in the graft trial; five were included in both trials) and were included in the baseline analyses only. Mean POP-SS at 1 year did not differ substantially between comparisons (standard 5·4 [SD 5·5] vs mesh 5·5 [5·1], mean difference 0·00, 95% CI -0·70 to 0·71; p=0·99; standard 5·5 [SD 5·6] vs graft 5·6 [5·6]; mean difference -0·15, -0·93 to 0·63; p=0·71). Mean prolapse-related quality-of-life scores also did not differ between groups at 1 year (standard 2·0 [SD 2·7] vs mesh 2·2 [2·7], mean difference 0·13, 95% CI -0·25 to 0·51; p=0·50; standard 2·2 [SD 2·8] vs graft 2·4 [2·9]; mean difference 0·13, -0·30 to 0·56; p=0·54). Mean POP-SS at 2 years were: standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus mesh 5·3 (5·1), mean difference 0·32, 95% CI -0·39 to 1·03; p=0·37; standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus graft 5·5 (5·7); mean difference 0·32, -0·48 to 1·12; p=0·43. Prolapse-related quality-of-life scores at 2 years were: standard 1·9 (SD 2·5) versus mesh 2·2 (2·6), mean difference 0·15, 95% CI -0·23 to 0·54; p=0·44; standard 2·0 (2·5) versus graft 2·2 (2·8); mean difference 0·10, -0·33 to 0·52; p=0·66. Serious adverse events such as infection, urinary retention, or dyspareunia or other pain, excluding mesh complications, occurred with similar frequency in the groups over 1 year (mesh trial: 31/430 [7%] with standard repair vs 34/435 [8%] with mesh, risk ratio [RR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·68 to 1·72; p=0·73; graft trial: 23/367 [6%] with standard repair vs 36/368 [10%] with graft, RR 1·57, 0·95 to 2·59; p=0·08). The cumulative number of women with a mesh complication over 2 years in women actually exposed to synthetic mesh was 51 (12%) of 434.

INTERPRETATION

Augmentation of a vaginal repair with mesh or graft material did not improve women's outcomes in terms of effectiveness, quality of life, adverse effects, or any other outcome in the short term, but more than one in ten women had a mesh complication. Therefore, follow-up is vital to identify any longer-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects of mesh or graft reinforcement in vaginal prolapse surgery.

FUNDING

UK National Institute of Health Research.

Prosthetic surgery versus native tissue repair of cystocele: literature review

Cystocele is the most common pelvic organ prolapse. It is defined as the descent of the bladder into the anterior vaginal wall. Aging is significantly associated with the prevalence and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Treatment may be conservative or surgical according to symptoms, prolapse degree and not forgetting both patient and doctor preferences. Identify the most efficient surgical treatment to treat cystocele and its recurrences. Scientific literature was reviewed searching PubMed/MEDLINE database for articles published between 1996 and 2015 and using the terms pelvic organ prolapse, cystocele, mesh surgery, traditional repair, pelvic organ prolapse recurrence, complications, sexual function. There are two different surgical approaches for the treatment of cystocele: traditional repair and mesh repair. Prosthetic treatment gives higher anatomical success rate and fewer recurrence while traditional anterior repair has less complications. Surgical treatment in general improves both the anatomical success rate and the quality of life. The choice of surgery, between traditional and mesh repair, has to be personalized related to the prolapse grade and women tissues.