Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 4/2019

01-04-2019 | Original Article

Association between method of pelvic organ prolapse repair involving the vaginal apex and re-operation: a population-based, retrospective cohort study

Authors: You (Maria) Wu, Jennifer Reid, Queena Chou, Barry MacMillan, Yvonne Leong, Blayne Welk

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Vaginal apical suspension is essential for the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We aim to evaluate whether the method of apical repair is associated with different re-operation rates for POP recurrence or surgical complications.

Methods

Population-based, retrospective cohort study of all Ontario women receiving primary apical POP repairs from 2003 to 2015. Primary exposure was the method of apical POP repair. Primary outcome was re-operation for recurrent POP, and secondary outcomes were surgical procedures for genito-intestinal (GI) or genitourinary (GU) complications, fistula repair, and mesh revision or removal.

Results

Forty-three thousand four hundred fifty-eight women were included. Overall, the number of mesh-based apical repairs decreased over time, while the number of native-tissue repairs slightly increased (p < 0.001). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards (Cox PH) analysis demonstrated a significant increase in repeat POP operations for transvaginal mesh apical repairs (adjusted HR 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10–1.48]), but not in abdominal mesh repairs (adjusted HR 0.96 [95% CI: 0.81–1.13]) compared with vaginal native tissue apical repairs. Overall risk of repeat surgery for fistulas or GI and GU complications remained low (< 0.5%). Risk of mesh removal or revision was 11.5–11.9%, with no difference between abdominal versus vaginal mesh on multivariable analysis (adjusted HR 0.99 [95% CI: 0.78–1.26]).

Conclusions

Re-operation for recurrent POP is highest in transvaginal mesh apical repairs; however, this risk did not differ between abdominal mesh and vaginal native tissue apical repairs. GI and GU re-operations are rare. There is no difference in mesh removal or revision rates between abdominal and vaginal mesh repairs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Shull BL. Pelvic organ prolapse: anterior, superior, and posterior vaginal segment defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(1):6–11.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Alas AN, Anger JT. Role of apical support defect: correction in women undergoing vaginal prolapse surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(5):386–92.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Raman SV, Raker CA, Sung VW. Concomitant apical prolapse repair and incontinence procedures: trends from 2001-2009 in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(3):222.e1–5.CrossRef
5.
6.
Dubuisson J, et al. Laparoscopic repair of vaginal vault prolapse by lateral suspension with mesh. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(2):307–12.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Younger A, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in academic female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery urology practice in the setting of the Food and Drug Administration public health notifications. Urology. 2016;91:46–50.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Administration, U.F.a.D. Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. Center for Devices and Radiological Health; 2011. p. 15.
9.
Feiner B, Maher C. Vaginal mesh contraction: definition, clinical presentation, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(2 Pt 1):325–30.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Iglesia CB, et al. Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(2 Pt 1):293–303.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Nygaard IE, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Jelovsek JE, et al. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the OPTIMAL randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2018;319(15):1554–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Siddiqui NY, et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):44–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Morling JR, et al. Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997-2016: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;389(10069):629–40.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Benchimol EI, et al. The REporting of studies conducted using observational routinely-collected health data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001885.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Williams J, Young W. Appendix I: a summary of studies on the quality of health care administrative databases in Canada. In: Williams J, Goel V, Anderson GM et al., editors. Patterns of Health Care in Ontario: the ICES Practice Atlas, 2nd edition. Canadian Medical Association; 2000. p. 339–347.
17.
Raina P, et al. Agreement between self-reported and routinely collected health-care utilization data among seniors. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(3):751–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Iron K, Manuel D. Quality assessment of administrative data (QuAAD): an opportunity for enhancing Ontario’s health data. ICES investigative report. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2007.
19.
Gibson D, Richards H, Chapman A. The National Ambulatory Care Reporting System: factors that affect the quality of its emergency data. Int J Inf Qual. 2008;2(2):97–114.
20.
Jha P, et al. Characteristics and mortality outcomes of thrombolysis trial participants and nonparticipants: a population-based comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27(6):1335–42.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Weiner JP. The Johns Hopkins ACG® Case-Mix System Version 10.0 Release Notes., H.S.R.D.C. The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Editor. 2011: The Johns Hopkins University.
22.
Austin PC, et al. Using the Johns Hopkins aggregated diagnosis groups (ADGs) to predict mortality in a general adult population cohort in Ontario, Canada. Med Care. 2011;49(10):932–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496–509.CrossRef
24.
LO T-S, WANG AC. Abdominal Colposacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe Uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison. J Gynecol Surg. 1998;14(2):59–64.CrossRef
25.
Chen Y, Hua K. Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;137(2):164–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Larouche M, Geoffrion R, Walter J-E. No. 351-transvaginal mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39(11):1085–97.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Stewart JR, Hamner JJ, Heit MH. Thirty years of cystocele/rectocele repair in the United States. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(4):243–7.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kelly EC, Winick-Ng J, Welk B. Surgeon experience and complications of transvaginal prolapse mesh. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):65–72.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Diwadkar GB, et al. Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2 Pt 1):367–73.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Committee Opinion No. 694: Management of Mesh and Graft Complications in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129(4):e102-e108.
Metadata
Title
Association between method of pelvic organ prolapse repair involving the vaginal apex and re-operation: a population-based, retrospective cohort study
Authors
You (Maria) Wu
Jennifer Reid
Queena Chou
Barry MacMillan
Yvonne Leong
Blayne Welk
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3792-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

International Urogynecology Journal 4/2019 Go to the issue

Review Article

The incidence of urinary tract infection of different routes of catheterization following gynecologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Review Article

Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines

Original Article

Uterus preservation is superior to hysterectomy when performing laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh

IUJ Video

Repair of colonic neovaginal stenosis using a biological graft in a male-to-female transgender patient

Commentary

Commentary on the paper titled: “Partially absorbable mesh or native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial”

Original Article

Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey