Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Follow-up of mesh complications using the IUGA/ICS category–time–site coding classification

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

Abstract

Introduction

The International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) and the International Continence Society (ICS) developed a complication classification to facilitate international comparison and to improve our understanding of complications. This code was applied to surgical cases for the analysis of complications after mesh insertion.

Methods

The study included patients who had undergone vaginal prolapse repair with a trocar-guided polypropylene mesh between 2006 and 2010 in a Dutch peripheral hospital. Complications were assessed at secondary follow-up and classified using category (C), timing (T), and site (S) components (CTS).

Results

Of the 107 women included, 84 returned for secondary follow-up (response rate 80 %, median time after surgery 36 months, range 12–64). In 45 patients no complications occurred. In the remaining 39 patients, 43 complication codes were established. Six of the seven categories of complications were found at all different time codes. Concerning the site of the complication codes S1, S2, and S3 were applicable. Perioperative complications (6 %) included hemorrhage and bladder perforation. Six patients were reoperated for symptomatic mesh exposure or local pain. At secondary follow-up exposure was diagnosed in another 4 patients (12 %). In 36 % mesh wrinkling or shrinkage was discovered, although without complaints in most. Eight women had daily complaints or dyspareunia. Eighty-two percent of patients indicated strong improvement after surgery. Several limitations of the classification are discussed.

Conclusions

Despite limitations, the IUGA/ICS code is demonstrated to be useful in describing mesh complications. We advise the use of the CTS code at follow-up consultations after a minimum of 2 years for improved insight into and knowledge on the occurrence of complications.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Slieker-ten Hove MC, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJ, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Burger CW, Vierhout ME (2009) Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and possible risk factors in a general population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:184–187. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.070

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY (2001) The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1496–1501, discussion 1501–1503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA Safety Communication: update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertandNotices/umc262435.htm. Accessed 30 April 2013

  4. Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW et al (2011) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22:3–15. doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1324-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Firoozi F, Ingber MS, Moore CK, Vasavada SP, Rackley RR, Goldman HB (2012) Purely transvaginal/perineal management of complications from commercial prolapse kits using a new prostheses/grafts complication classification system. J Urol 187:1674–1679. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.12.066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Skala C, Renezeder K, Albrich S, Puhl A, Laterza RM, Naumann G, Koelbl H (2011) The IUGA/ICS classification of complications of prosthesis and graft insertion: a comparative experience in incontinence and prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22:1429–1435. doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1508-y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Petri E, Ashok K (2012) Complications of synthetic slings used in female stress urinary incontinence and applicability of the new IUGA-ICS classification. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165:347–351. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.08.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (prolift technique) - a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:743–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van der Vaart CH, de Leeuw JR, Roovers JP, Heintz AP (2003) Measuring health-related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: the urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire revisited. Neurourol Urodyn 22:97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Brummen HJ, Bruinse HW, van de Pol G, Heintz AP, van der Vaart CH (2006) Defecatory symptoms during and after the first pregnancy: prevalences and associated factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:224–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rogers RG, Coates KW, Kammerer-Doak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C (2003) A short form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 14:164–168, discussion 168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Srikrishna S, Robinson R, Cardozo L (2010) Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21:523–528. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gutman RE, Nygaard IE, Ye W, Rahn DD, Barber MD, Zyczynski HM et al (2013) The pelvic floor complication scale: a new instrument for reconstructive pelvic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208:81–89. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.10.889

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gowda M, Kit LC, Stuart Reynolds W, Wang L, Dmochowski RR, Kaufman MR (2013) Interobserver variability when employing the IUGA/ICS classification system for complications related to prostheses and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 24:1671–1678. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2078-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tunitsky E, Abbott S, Barber MD (2012) Interrater reliability of the International Continence Society and International Urogynecological Association (ICS/IUGA) classification system for mesh-related complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206:442–426. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.004

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Withagen MI, Milani AL (2007) Which factors influenced the result of a tension free vaginal tape operation in a single teaching hospital? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86:1136–1139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ennemoser S, Schönfeld M, von Bodungen V, Dian D, Friese K, Jundt K (2012) Clinical relevance of occult stress urinary incontinence (OSUI) following vaginal prolapse surgery: long-term follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 23:851–855. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1765-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank M. Scheltes for her assistance with the database.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Financial disclaimer

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. A. Spaans.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bontje, H.F., van de Pol, G., van der Zaag-Loonen, H.J. et al. Follow-up of mesh complications using the IUGA/ICS category–time–site coding classification. Int Urogynecol J 25, 817–822 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2321-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2321-6

Keywords

Navigation