nach oben

International Urogynecology Journal

Erschienen in:

25.11.2020 | Review Article

Comparison of synthetic mesh erosion and chronic pain rates after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review

verfasst von: Eoin MacCraith, Eoghan M. Cunnane, Michael Joyce, James C. Forde, Fergal J. O’Brien, Niall F. Davis

Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study is to systematically compare rates of erosion and chronic pain after mesh insertion for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery.

Methods

A systematic electronic search was performed on studies that evaluated the incidence of erosion and chronic pain after mesh insertion for POP or SUI. The primary outcome measurement was to compare mesh erosion rates for POP and SUI surgery. Secondary outcome measurements were incidence of de novo pain and a comparison of patient demographics for both surgeries.

Results

Twenty-six studies on 292,606 patients (n = 9077 for POP surgery and n = 283,529 for SUI surgery) met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 26.38 ± 22.17 months for POP surgery and 39.33 ± 27.68 months for SUI surgery. Overall, the POP group were older (p < 0.0001) and had a lower BMI (p < 0.0001). Mesh erosion rates were significantly greater in the POP group compared to the SUI group (4% versus 1.9%) (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.91–2.37; p < 0.0001). The duration from surgery to onset of mesh erosion was 306.84 ± 183.98 days. There was no difference in erosion rates between abdominal and transvaginal mesh for POP. There was no difference in erosion rates between the transobturator and retropubic approach for SUI. The incidence of chronic pain was significantly greater in the POP group compared to the SUI group (6.7% versus 0.6%) (OR 11.02; 95% CI 8.15–14.9; p < 0.0001). The duration from surgery to onset of chronic pain was 325.88 ± 226.31 days.

Conclusions

The risk of mesh erosion and chronic pain is significantly higher after surgery for POP compared to SUI. These significant complications occur within the first year after surgery.

Haylen BT, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26.PubMed

Mettu JR, Colaco M, Badlani GH. Evidence-based outcomes for mesh-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(4):370–4.PubMed

Norton P, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence in women. Lancet. 2006;367(9504):57–67.PubMed

Wu JM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.PubMedPubMedCentral

Gibson W, Wagg A. Are older women more likely to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence since the introduction of the mid-urethral sling? An examination of hospital episode statistics data. Bjog. 2016;123(8):1386–92.PubMed

Olsen AL, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.PubMed

Keltie K, et al. Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8 year study of 92,246 women. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):12015.PubMedPubMedCentral

Ford AA, et al. Mid-urethral sling operations for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;7:Cd006375.

Milani AL, et al. The use of mesh in vaginal prolapse. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013;157(31):A6324.PubMed

10.

Ugianskiene A, Davila GW, Su TH. FIGO review of statements on use of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;147(2):147–55.PubMed

11.

Department of Health I. Minister for Health Simon Harris Announces Pause in the Use of Transvaginal Mesh Devices. 2018.

12.

Mucowski SJ, Jurnalov C, Phelps JY. Use of vaginal mesh in the face of recent FDA warnings and litigation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(2):103.e1–4.

13.

Watanabe T, Chancellor MB. Pelvic surgeons caught in the meshes of the law. Rev Urol. 2012;14(1–2):35–6.PubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Phillips B. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of Evidence (March 2009). 2009. https://www.cebm.net/2009/06/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidencemarch-2009/.

15.

Clark HD, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(5):448–52.PubMed

16.

Wells GA, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2014. Ottawa Hosp Res Inst [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 28 Jul 2020.

17.

Min H, et al. Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of the application of adjuvant material in the repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapsed. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(5):919–36.PubMed

18.

Hudson CO, et al. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(5):252–60.PubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Rudnicki M, et al. Adjustable mini-sling compared with conventional mid-urethral slings in women with urinary incontinence. A randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(11):1347–56.PubMed

20.

Milani AL, et al. Long-term outcome of vaginal mesh or native tissue in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):847–58.PubMed

21.

Brubaker L, et al. Adverse events over two years after retropubic or transobturator midurethral sling surgery: findings from the trial of Midurethral slings (TOMUS) study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(5):498.e1–6.

22.

Bjelic-Radisic V, et al. Vaginal prolapse surgery with transvaginal mesh: results of the Austrian registry. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(8):1047–52.PubMed

23.

Wang C, Christie AL, Zimmern PE. Synthetic mid-urethral sling complications: evolution of presenting symptoms over time. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(6):1937–42.PubMed

24.

Kenton K, et al. 5-year longitudinal followup after retropubic and transobturator mid urethral slings. J Urol. 2015;193(1):203–10.PubMed

25.

Yildiz G, et al. Safety and efficacy of single-incision sling for female stress urinary incontinence: 3 years' results. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(11):1667–71.PubMed

26.

Hsieh HY, et al. Factors that affect outcomes of prolapse repair using single-incision vaginal mesh procedures. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(1):298–306.PubMed

27.

Withagen MI, et al. Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(3):629–36.PubMed

28.

Takahashi S, et al. Tension-free vaginal mesh procedure for pelvic organ prolapse: a single-center experience of 310 cases with 1-year follow up. Int J Urol. 2010;17(4):353–8.PubMed

29.

Berger AA, Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA. Long-term risk of reoperation after synthetic mesh Midurethral sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(5):1047–55.PubMed

30.

Berger AA, Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA. Surgeon volume and reoperation risk after midurethral sling surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(5):523.e1–8.

31.

Chughtai B, et al. Association between the amount of vaginal mesh used with mesh erosions and repeated surgery after repairing pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(3):257–63.PubMed

32.

Jonsson Funk M, et al. Sling revision/removal for mesh erosion and urinary retention: long-term risk and predictors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(1):73.e1–7.

33.

Karmakar D, Dwyer PL, Nikpoor P. Mid-urethral sling revision for mesh exposure-long-term outcomes of two surgical techniques from a comparative clinical retrospective cohort study. Bjog. 2020;127(8):1027–33.PubMed

34.

Kokanali MK, et al. Risk factors for mesh erosion after vaginal sling procedures for urinary incontinence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;177:146–50.PubMed

35.

Linder BJ, et al. Predictors of vaginal mesh exposure after midurethral sling placement: a case-control study. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(9):1321–6.PubMed

36.

Nguyen JN, et al. Perioperative complications and reoperations after incontinence and prolapse surgeries using prosthetic implants. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(3):539–46.PubMed

37.

Stewart LE, et al. Stress urinary incontinence surgery in Washington state before and after introduction of the mesh Midurethral sling. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(5):358–61.PubMed

38.

Baines G, et al. Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(9):1475–81.PubMed

39.

de Landsheere L, et al. Surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair: retrospective single-center study including 524 patients with 3 years' median follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):83.e1–7.

40.

Wong KS, et al. Adverse events associated with pelvic organ prolapse surgeries that use implants. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(6):1239–45.PubMed

41.

Levy G, et al. Outcome of vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery in multiparous compared with grand multiparous women: retrospective long-term follow-up. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0176666.PubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Khan ZA, Thomas L, Emery SJ. Outcomes and complications of trans-vaginal mesh repair using the Prolift™ kit for pelvic organ prolapse at 4 years median follow-up in a tertiary referral Centre. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;290(6):1151–7.PubMed

43.

Karmakar D, Mostafa A, Abdel-Fattah M. Long-term outcomes of transobturator tapes in women with stress urinary incontinence: E-TOT randomised controlled trial. Bjog. 2017;124(6):973–81.PubMed

44.

Kaufman Y, et al. Age and sexual activity are risk factors for mesh exposure following transvaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(3):307–13.PubMed

45.

Brennand EA, et al. Twelve-month outcomes following midurethral sling procedures for stress incontinence: impact of obesity. Bjog. 2015;122(12):1705–12.PubMed

46.

Lapitan MC, Cody JD, Grant A. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):Cd002912.

47.

Rehman H, et al. Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7(7):Cd001754.PubMed

48.

Davis NF, Kheradmand F, Creagh T. Injectable biomaterials for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: their potential and pitfalls as urethral bulking agents. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(6):913–9.PubMed

49.

Kirchin V, et al. Urethral injection therapy for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:Cd003881.

Titel: Comparison of synthetic mesh erosion and chronic pain rates after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review
verfasst von: Eoin MacCraith
Eoghan M. Cunnane
Michael Joyce
James C. Forde
Fergal J. O’Brien
Niall F. Davis
Publikationsdatum: 25.11.2020
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04612-x

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

23.04.2024 | Medikamente in Schwangerschaft und Stillzeit | Nachrichten

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Comparison of synthetic mesh erosion and chronic pain rates after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Harnwegsinfektprophylaxe: Es geht auch ohne Antibiotika

Update Gynäkologie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

Predictors of delayed postoperative urinary retention after female pelvic reconstructive surgery

Transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation to treat urgency urinary incontinence in older women: 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

TAS-303 effects on urethral sphincter function in women with stress urinary incontinence: phase I study

Commentary on “Voided volume for postoperative voiding assessment following prolapse and urinary incontinence surgery”

Results of bladder neck reconstruction using bladder flaps in complex female urethral defects

Non-invasive massage technique to aid in removal of a tined sacral neuromodulation lead

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

ICI-Therapie in der Schwangerschaft wird gut toleriert

Weniger postpartale Depressionen nach Esketamin-Einmalgabe

Bei RSV-Impfung vor 60. Lebensjahr über Off-Label-Gebrauch aufklären!

Harnwegsinfektprophylaxe: Es geht auch ohne Antibiotika

Update Gynäkologie