Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-01-2013 | Original Article

Managing mesh exposure following vaginal prolapse repair: a decision analysis comparing conservative versus surgical treatment

Authors: Laura C. Skoczylas, Jonathan P. Shepherd, Kenneth J. Smith, Jerry L. Lowder

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 1/2013

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

A decision analysis model was developed comparing conservative and surgical treatments in the management of synthetic mesh exposure following vaginal prolapse repair. We hypothesized that surgical excision would be favored.

Methods

A Markov decision analysis model compared initial management with conservative versus surgical treatment allowing for the complexities of multiple attempts at conservative management and/or surgical mesh excision. Model assumptions were obtained from published literature or through surrogate values and expert consensus when not available in published resources. Transitions were made between Markov states at 6-week intervals and overall utility was compared over 2 years. Multiple one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Initial surgical excision was favored, with an average yearly quality adjusted life year (QALY) value of 0.947 compared to 0.939 for conservative treatment. This difference is less than the published minimally important difference (MID) for utility values. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that surgical excision is favored when the probability of being healed with conservative therapy is less than 80 % (base case 57.1 %) and when the probability of being healed from surgery is greater than 78 % (base case 93.2 %). Few thresholds confirmed model robustness.

Conclusions

While our model favored surgical excision over conservative treatment in the initial management of mesh exposure following vaginal prolapse repair with synthetic mesh, the difference in QALYs between strategies was less than the MID. Therefore the strategies are likely similar overall. Individual patient characteristics may ultimately drive clinical decision-making for this surgical complication.

Available only for authorised users

Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD (2004) Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(5):1533–1538PubMedCrossRef

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506PubMedCrossRef

Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM (2011) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J 22(11):1445–1457PubMedCrossRef

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 113:367–373PubMed

Huang WC, Lin TY, Lau HH, Chen SS, Hsieh CH, Su TH (2011) Outcome of transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery with Prolift after a median of 2 years’ follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 22(2):197–203PubMedCrossRef

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 18:743–752PubMedCrossRef

Ganj FA, Ibeanu OA, Bedestani A, Nolan TE, Chesson RR (2009) Complications of transvaginal monofilament polypropylene mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:919–925PubMedCrossRef

Culligan PJ, Littman PM, Salamon CG, Priestley JL, Shariati A (2010) Evaluation of a transvaginal mesh delivery system for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse: subjective and objective findings at least 1 year after surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:506.e1–506.e6CrossRef

Argirovic RB, Gudovic AM, Babovic IR, Berisavac MV (2010) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse with polypropylene mesh using a tension-free technique. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 153(1):104–107PubMedCrossRef

10.

Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116:293–303PubMedCrossRef

11.

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.e8CrossRef

12.

Deffieux X, de Tayrac R, Huel C et al (2007) Vaginal mesh erosion after transvaginal repair of cystocele using Gynemesh or Gynemesh-Soft in 138 women: a comparative study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(1):73–79PubMedCrossRef

13.

Food and Drug Administration (2008) FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Silver Spring (MD): FDA. Available via http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm. Accessed 7 Jan 2012

14.

Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Silver Spring (MD): FDA. Available via http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed 7 Jan 2012

15.

Committee on Gynecologic Practice (2011) Committee Opinion no. 513: vaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 118:1459-1464

16.

Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR (1993) Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 13(4):322–338PubMedCrossRef

17.

Margulies RU, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Fenner DE, McGuire EJ, Clemens JQ, DeLancey J (2008) Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:678.e1–678.e4CrossRef

18.

de Tayrac R, Deffieux X, Gervaise A, Chauveaud-Lambling A, Fernandez H (2006) Long-term anatomical and functional assessment of trans-vaginal cystocele repair using a tension-free polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(5):483–488PubMedCrossRef

19.

Shepherd JP, Lowder JL, Jones KA, Smith KJ (2010) Retropubic and transobturator midurethral slings: a decision analysis to compare outcomes including efficacy and complications. Int Urogynecol J 21:787–793PubMedCrossRef

20.

Tengs TO, Wallace A (2000) One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care 38:583–637PubMedCrossRef

21.

Gold MR, Franks P, McCoy KI, Fryback DG (1998) Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values. Med Care 36:778–792PubMedCrossRef

22.

Abdel-Fattah M, Ramsay I, West of Scotland Study Group (2008) Retrospective multicentre study of the new minimally invasive mesh repair devices for pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG 115(1):22–30PubMedCrossRef

23.

Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C, Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group (2008) Short-term outcome after transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(6):787–793PubMedCrossRef

24.

Aungst MJ, Friedman EB, von Pechmann WS, Horbach NS, Welgoss JA (2009) De novo stress incontinence and pelvic muscle symptoms after transvaginal mesh repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201(1):73.e1–73.e7CrossRef

25.

Walters SJ, Brazier JE (2005) Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 14(6):1523–1532PubMedCrossRef

26.

Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE 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) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22(1):3–15PubMedCrossRef

27.

Wells CD, Murrill WB, Arguedas MR (2004) Comparison of health-related quality of life preferences between physicians and cirrhotic patients: implications for cost-utility analyses in chronic liver disease. Dig Dis Sci 49:453–458PubMedCrossRef

28.

Kramer MS, MacLellan AM, Ciampi A, Etezadi-Amoli J, Leduc DG (1990) Parents’ vs physicians’ utilities (values) for clinical outcomes in potentially bacteremic children. J Clin Epidemiol 43:1319–1325PubMedCrossRef

Title: Managing mesh exposure following vaginal prolapse repair: a decision analysis comparing conservative versus surgical treatment
Authors: Laura C. Skoczylas
Jonathan P. Shepherd
Kenneth J. Smith
Jerry L. Lowder
Publication date: 01-01-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1847-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Managing mesh exposure following vaginal prolapse repair: a decision analysis comparing conservative versus surgical treatment

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

On the relevance of uniaxial tensile testing of urogynecological prostheses: the effect of displacement rate

Measuring outcomes in urogynecological surgery: “perspective is everything”

Sexual activity and function in women with and without pelvic floor disorders

Mesh erosion following abdominal sacral colpopexy in the absence and presence of the cervical stump

Clinical examination remains more important than anorectal function tests to identify treatable conditions in women with constipation

A systematic review and meta-analysis of Macroplastique for treating female stress urinary incontinence