International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 441–445 | Cite as

Computer modeling informs study design: vaginal estrogen to prevent mesh erosion after different routes of prolapse surgery

  • Alison C. Weidner
  • Jennifer M. Wu
  • Amie Kawasaki
  • Evan R. Myers
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Many clinicians use perioperative vaginal estrogen therapy (estradiol, E2) to diminish the risk of mesh erosion after prolapse surgery, though supporting evidence is limited. We assessed the feasibility of a factorial randomized trial comparing mesh erosion rates after vaginal mesh prolapse surgery (VM) versus minimally invasive sacral colpopexy (MISC), with or without adjunct vaginal estrogen therapy.


A Markov state transition model simulated the probability of 2-year outcomes of visceral injury, mesh erosion, and reoperation after four possible prolapse therapies: VM or MISC, each with or without estrogen therapy (E2). We used pooled estimates from a systematic review to generate probability distributions for the following outcomes after each procedure: visceral injury, postoperative mesh erosion, and reoperation for either recurrent prolapse or mesh erosion. Assuming different assumptions for E2 efficacies (50 and 75 % reduction in erosion rates), Monte Carlo simulations estimated outcomes rates, which were then used to generate sample size estimates for a four-arm factorial trial.


While E2 reduced the risk of mesh erosion for both VM and MISC, absolute reduction was small. Assuming 75 % efficacy, E2 decreased the risk of mesh erosion for VM from 7.8 to 2.0 % and for MISC from 2.0 to 0.5 %. Total sample sizes ranged from 448 to 1,620, depending on power and E2 efficacy.


The required sample size for a trial to determine which therapy results in the lowest erosion rates would be prohibitively large. Because this remains an important clinical issue, further study design strategies could include composite outcomes, cost-effectiveness, or value of information analysis.


Estrogen therapy Permanent mesh Prolapse Surgery 


Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E (1996) Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1418–1421, discussion 1421–1422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P (2011) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(4):360.e1–360.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brubaker L (2005) Controversies and uncertainties: abdominal versus vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:690–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ (2004) Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JH, Scholten PC, Heintz AP (2004) A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG 111:50–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112:1201–1206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116:293–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111:891–898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(3):235.e1–235.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG et al (2008) Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(6):688.e1–688.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR (1993) Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 13:322–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Myers ER, Silva S, Hafley G, Kunselman A, Nestler JE, Legro RS, NICHD Reproductive Medicine Network (2005) Estimating live birth rates after ovulation induction in polycystic ovary syndrome: sample size calculations for the pregnancy in polycystic ovary syndrome trial. Contemp Clin Trials 26:271–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE (2009) Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 113:367–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ostergard DR (2010) Polypropylene vaginal mesh grafts in gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 116:962–966PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moore RD, McCammon K, Gambla MT, Jacome E, Badlani G (2007) Prospective, multi-center trial evaluating the Perigee system with polypropylene mesh for cystocele repair: estrogenicity and outcomes. Abstract presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6):204Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hurtado EA, Appell RA (2009) Management of complications arising from transvaginal mesh kit procedures: a tertiary referral center’s experience. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marcus-Braun N, von Theobald P (2010) Mesh removal following transvaginal mesh placement: a case series of 104 operations. Int Urogynecol J 21:423–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ridgeway B, Walters MD, Paraiso MF et al (2008) Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(6):703.e1–703.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feiner B, Maher C (2010) Vaginal mesh contraction: definition, clinical presentation, and management. Obstet Gynecol 115:325–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ (2006) Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics 24:1055–1068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Griffin S, Welton NJ, Claxton K (2010) Exploring the research decision space: the expected value of information for sequential research designs. Med Decis Making 30:155–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison C. Weidner
    • 1
  • Jennifer M. Wu
    • 1
  • Amie Kawasaki
    • 1
  • Evan R. Myers
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Division of Clinical and Epidemiologic Research, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations