Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reoperation rates for pelvic organ prolapse repairs with biologic and synthetic grafts in a large population-based cohort

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

As the long-term complications of synthetic mesh become increasingly apparent, re-evaluation of alternative graft options for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repairs is critical. We sought to compare the long-term reoperation rates of biologic and synthetic grafts in POP repair.

Methods

Using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database, we identified all women who underwent index inpatient POP repair with either a synthetic or biologic graft between 2005 and 2011 in the state of California. ICD-9 and CPT codes were used to identify subsequent surgeries in these patients for either recurrent POP or a graft complication.

Results

A total of 14,192 women underwent POP repair with a biologic (14%) or synthetic graft (86%) during the study period. Women with biologic grafts had increased rates of surgery for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (3.6% vs 2.5%, p = 0.01), whereas women with synthetic grafts had higher rates of repeat surgery for a graft complication (3.0 vs 2.0%, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the overall risk of repeat surgery between the groups (5.7% vs 5.6%, p = 0.79). These effects persisted in multivariate modeling.

Conclusions

We demonstrate in a large population-based cohort that biologic grafts are associated with an increased rate of repeat surgery for POP recurrence whereas synthetic mesh is associated with an increased rate of repeat surgery for a graft complication. These competing risks result in an equivalent overall any-cause repeat surgery rate between the groups. These data suggest that neither type of graft should be excluded from use and encourage a personalized risk assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AS:

Ambulatory surgery

CPT:

Current procedure terminology

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

ICD-9:

International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition

OSHPD:

Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development

PD:

Patient discharge

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

References

  1. Nygaard I, Bradley C, Brandt D. Pelvic organ prolapse in older women: prevalence and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):489–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(3):437–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, Winkler HA, Tomezsko J, Culligan PJ, et al. Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(7):1357–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sivaslioglu A, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I. A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(4):467–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Paraiso MFR, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1762–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, et al. Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(2 Pt 2):455–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:891–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Abed H, Rahn D, Lowenstein L, Balk EM, Clemons JL, Rogers RG, et al. Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:789–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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  Google Scholar 

  11. Jonsson Funk M, Edenfield A, Pate V, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Wu JM. Trends in use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(1):79.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rogo-Gupta L, Rodriguez LV, Litwin MS, Herzog TJ, Neugut AI, Lu YS, et al. Trends in surgical mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse from 2000 to 2010. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1105–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang LC, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Hu JC, Laudano MA, Davison WL, Schulster ML, et al. Trends in mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse repair from the Medicare database. Urology. 2015;86(5):885–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. FDA Public Health Notifications (Medical Devices)—FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Available at <http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm>.

  15. FDA Safety Communications—update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: FDA safety communication. Available at <http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm>.

  16. Food and Drug Administration. FDA takes action to protect women’s health, orders manufacturers of surgical mesh intended for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse to stop selling all devices. Silver Spring: FDA; 2019. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm636114.htm. Accessed 28 May 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jakus SM, Shapiro A, Hall CD. Biologic and synthetic graft use in pelvic surgery: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008;63(4):253–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clemons JL, Weinstein M, Guess MK, Alperin M, Moalli P, Gregory WT, et al. Impact of the 2011 FDA transvaginal mesh safety update on AUGS members’ use of synthetic mesh and biologic grafts in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):191–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schimpf MO, Abed H, Sanses T, White AB, Lowenstein L, Ward RM, et al. Graft and mesh use in transvaginal prolapse repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):81–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rhoads K, Sokol E. Variation in the quality of surgical care for uterovaginal prolapse. Med Care. 2011;49(1):46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Raoof M, Dumitra S, Ituarte PHG, Melstrom L, Warner SG, Fong Y, et al. Development and validation of a prognostic score for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(5):e170117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rajeshuni N, Johnston EE, Saynina O, Sanders LM, Chamberlain LJ. Disparities in location of death of adolescents and young adults with cancer: a longitudinal population study in California. Cancer. 2017;123(21):4178–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Natale F, La Penna C, Padoa A, Agostini M, De Simone E, Cervigni M. A prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing Gynemesh, a synthetic mesh, and Pelvicol, a biologic graft, in the surgical treatment of recurrent cystocele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(1):75–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Menefee SA, Dyer KY, Lukacz ES, Simsiman AJ, Luber KM, Nguyen JN. Colporrhaphy compared with mesh or graft reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1337–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Handel LN, Frenkl TL, Kim YH. Results of cystocele repair: a comparison of traditional anterior colporrhaphy, polypropylene mesh and porcine dermis. J Urol. 2007;178:153–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389:381–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Altman D, Anzen B, Brismar S, Lopez A, Zetterstrom J. Long-term outcome of abdominal sacrocolpopexy using xenograft compared with synthetic mesh. Urology. 2006;67:719–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Culligan P, Salamon C, Priestley J, Shariati A. Porcine dermis compared with polypropylene mesh for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(1):143–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Hendriks JC, Kluivers KB, Milani AL. Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:629–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chughtai B, Barber MD, Mao J, Forde JC, Normand ST, Sedrakyan A. 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;152:257–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Drive, Grant Building S285, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Ericka M. Sohlberg, Kai B. Dallas, Brannon T. Weeks, Christopher S. Elliott & Lisa Rogo-Gupta

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Lisa Rogo-Gupta

Authors
  1. Ericka M. Sohlberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai B. Dallas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brannon T. Weeks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher S. Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lisa Rogo-Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ericka M. Sohlberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 5 Procedure codes used to define the cohort
Full size table
Table 6 Graft-related complication diagnosis codes
Full size table
Table 7 Graft-related complication procedure codes
Full size table
Table 8 Repeat surgery stratified by prolapse compartment (including concurrent incontinence repair)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sohlberg, E.M., Dallas, K.B., Weeks, B.T. et al. Reoperation rates for pelvic organ prolapse repairs with biologic and synthetic grafts in a large population-based cohort. Int Urogynecol J 31, 291–301 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04035-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04035-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation