Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse
- 900 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
To estimate the risk of repeat surgery for recurrent prolapse or mesh removal after vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse.
We utilized longitudinal, adjudicated, healthcare claims from 2005 to 2010 to identify women ≥18 years who underwent an anterior colporrhaphy (CPT 57420) with or without concurrent vaginal mesh (CPT 57267). The primary outcome was repeat surgery for anterior or apical prolapse or for mesh removal/revision; these outcomes were also analyzed separately. We utilized Kaplan–Meier curves to estimate the cumulative risk of each outcome after vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair, adjusted for age, concurrent hysterectomy, and concurrent or recent sling.
We identified 27,809 anterior prolapse surgeries with 49,658 person-years of follow-up. Of those, 6,871 (24.7%) included vaginal mesh. The 5-year cumulative risk of any repeat surgery was significantly higher for vaginal mesh versus native tissue (15.2 % vs 9.8 %, p <0.0001) with a 5-year risk of mesh revision/removal of 5.9%. The 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse was similar between vaginal mesh and native tissue groups (10.4 % vs 9.3 %, p = 0.70. The results of the adjusted Cox model were similar (HR 0.93, 95%CI: 0.83, 1.05).
The use of mesh for anterior prolapse was associated with an increased risk of any repeat surgery, which was driven by surgery for mesh removal. Native tissue and vaginal mesh surgery had similar 5-year risks for surgery for recurrent prolapse.
KeywordsAnterior colporrhaphy Pelvic organ prolapse Surgery Recurrent prolapse Vaginal mesh
This project was supported by grant number K02HS017950 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ; to M.J.F) and grant number K23HD068404 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (to J.M.W). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Conflicts of interest
- 1.FDA Safety Communication: Update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Issued on 13 July 2011. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed on 12 June 2012
- 2.Dangerous medical devices: most medical implants have never been tested for safety. Consumer Reports Magazine, May 2012. Accessed on 9 July 2012 at: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/04/cr-investigates-dangerous-medical-devices/index.htm
- 3.FDA Executive Summary: Surgical mesh for the treatment of women with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, 8–9 September 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ObstetricsandGynecologyDevices/UCM270402.pdf. Accessed on 12 June 2012
- 10.Thomson Reuters MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, 2000–2009. Source: RED BOOK® and MarketScan® are registered trademarks of Thomson Reuters (Healthcare) Inc. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/healthcare/healthcare_products/pharmaceuticals/mktscan_res_db/. Accessed on 12 June 2012
- 11.DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC (2011) US Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60–239, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf. Accessed on 24 June 2012