Surgical mesh can reinforce damaged biological structures in operations for genital organ prolapse. When a method is new, scientific information is often contradictory. Individual surgeons may accept different observations as useful, resulting in conflicting treatment strategies. Additional scientific information should lead to increasing convergence.
Based on data from the Swedish National Quality Register of Gynecological Surgery, all patients who underwent their first recurrent anterior compartment prolapse operation between 2006 and 2017 were included (2758 patients). Surgical mesh was used in 56.5%. We analyzed inter-county disparities in and patterns of mesh use over 12 years. To minimize confounding, we selected a group of highly comparable patients where similar decision patterns could be expected.
The use of mesh differed between counties by a factor of 11 (8.6–95.3%). Counties with low use of mesh continued with low use and counties with high use continued with high use.
Decisions regarding how to interpret existing scientific information about mesh implants in the early years of mesh use have led to “communities of practice” highly influenced by geographical factors. For 12 years, these groups have made disparate decisions and upheld them without measurable change toward consensus. The scientific learning process has stopped—despite the abundance of new publications and the steady supply of new types of mesh. Ongoing disparity in surgeons’ choices in comparable patients has an adverse effect on clinical care. For the patient, this represents 12 years of a geographical lottery concerning whether mesh is used or not.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):Cd004014.
American Food and Drug Administration. Alerts and notices: medical devices. 2002. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/UCM262760.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2017.
Davila GW, Baessler K, Cosson M, Cardozo L. Selection of patients in whom vaginal graft use may be appropriate. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(1):7–14. CrossRef
Haya N, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, et al. Prolapse and continence surgery in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2012. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):755.e751–27. CrossRef
GynOp. “about the register”. 2018. http://www.gynop.org/english/about/about.htm. Accessed 31 Jan 2018.
Peterson H, Leimanis A. The Swedish health-care system. System analysis of ambulatory care in selected countries: Springer; 1986. p. 81–4.
Bayes T. A letter from the late Reverend Mr. Thomas Bayes, FRS to John Canton, MA and FRS. Phil Trans (1683-1775). 1763;53:269–71.
Camerer C. Bounded rationality in individual decision making. Exp Econ. 1998;1(2):163–83. CrossRef
Hogarth RM, Einhorn HJ. Order effects in belief updating: the belief-adjustment model. Cogn Psychol. 1992;24(1):1–55. CrossRef
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:Cd012079. PubMed
Wall LL, Brown D. The perils of commercially driven surgical innovation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(1):30. e31–4. CrossRef
- Decisions to use surgical mesh in operations for pelvic organ prolapse: a question of geography?
Emil Karl Nüssler
Jacob Kjær Eskildsen
- Springer International Publishing
International Urogynecology Journal
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-3023
Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet
Mail Icon II