Top

Published in:

01-08-2017 | Special Contribution

Mesh in POP surgery should be based on the risk of the procedure, not the risk of recurrence

Author: Geoffrey W. Cundiff

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 8/2017

Abstract

The still unfolding story of mesh use in surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) offers insights into the factors that influence how we interpret evidence in assessing new technology. Our adoption of mesh in prolapse surgery was influenced by a paradigm shift from treating to preventing recurrent prolapse. This shift is largely unsupported by data and fails to account for the added risk associated with mesh use. This commentary explores unconscious factors that influence our interpretation of innovation and proposes a new approach to evaluating new surgical technologies that balances benefit and risk. Counseling patients about treatments using the benefit–risk approach offers a more balanced perspective. Using a formal benefit–risk assessment in the scientific evaluation of treatments will also provide a more balanced approach that supports the scientific process and patients who undergo treatment.

Murphy M, Holzberg A, van Raalte H, Kohli N, Goldman HB, Lucente V, on behlf of the Pelvic Surgeon’s Network. Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from the pelvic surgeons to the FDA safety communication: “UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse”. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:5–9.CrossRefPubMed

Festinger L. Cognitive dissonance. Sci Am. 1962;207(4):93–107.CrossRefPubMed

Hart W, Albarracín D, Eagly AH, Brechan I, Lindberg MJ, Merrill L. Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(4):555–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Richter K, Albrich W. Long-term results following fixation of the vagina on the sacrospinal ligament by the vaginal route (vaginaefixatio sacrospinalis vaginalis). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981;141:811–6.CrossRefPubMed

McCall ML. Posterior culdoplasty: surgical correction of enterocele during vaginal hysterectomy; a preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol. 1957;10:595–602.CrossRefPubMed

Lane FE. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;20:72–7.CrossRefPubMed

Blomquist JL, Van Rooyen J, Cundiff GW, Kaufman KS. Practice patterns for vaginal hysterectomy and pelvic organ prolapse surgery. J Pelvic Med Surg. 2003;9:167–72.CrossRef

Kuhn T. Historical structure of scientific discovery. Science. 1962;136(3518):760–4.CrossRefPubMed

Ulmsten U, Petros P. Intravaginal slingplasty (IVS): an ambulatory surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1995;29(1):75–82.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Burger JW, Luijendijk RW, Hop WC, Halm JA, Verdaasdonk EG, Jeekel J. Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of suture versus mesh repair of incisional hernia. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):578–83. discussion 583-5PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Cundiff GW, Addison WA. Management of pelvic organ prolapse. In: Bump RC, Cundiff GC, editors. Urogynecology and pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of America. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company; 1998.

13.

Swift SE, Pound T, Dias JK. Case-control study of etiologic factors in the development of severe pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Fllor Dysfunct. 2011;12(3):187–92.CrossRef

14.

Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R. Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1261–7.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I. Becerro. Risk factors for recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery: a review at 5 years after surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(11):1317–24.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Tegerstedt G, Hammarstrom M. Operation for pelvic organ prolapse: a follow-up study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(8):758–63.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Qatawneh A, Thekrallah F, Bata M, Al-Kazaleh F, Almustafa M, Abu-Kader I. Risk factors of surgical failure following sacrospinous colpopexy for the treatment of uterovaginalprolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(6):1159–65.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Weemhoff M, Vergeldt TF, Notten K, Serroyen J, Kampschoer PH, Roumen FJ. Avulsion of puborectalis muscle and other risk factors for cystocele recurrence: a 2-year follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(1):65–71.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Vergeldt TFM, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int J Urogyn. 2015;26(11):1559–73.CrossRef

20.

Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA, Schaffer J, Brown MB, Brubaker L, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):688.e1–5.CrossRef

21.

Wu PY, Chang CH, Shen MR, Chou CY, Yang YC, Huang YF. Seeking new surgical predictors of mesh exposure after transvaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(10):1547–55.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zycynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, Fine P, Menefee S. Ridgeway b, Visco a, Warren LK, Zhang M, Meikle S. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Kokotovic D, Bisgaard T, Helgstrand F. Long-term recurrence and complications associated with elective incisional hernia repair. JAMA. 2016;316(15):1575–82.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Mt-Isa S, Hallgreen CE, Wang N, Callréus T, Genov G, Hirsch I, Hobbiger SF, Hockley KS, Luciani D, Phillips LD, Quartey G, Sarac SB, Stoeckert I, Tzoulaki I, Micaleff A. Ashby D; IMI-PROTECT benefit-risk participants. Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(7):667–78.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Mesh in POP surgery should be based on the risk of the procedure, not the risk of recurrence
Author: Geoffrey W. Cundiff
Publication date: 01-08-2017
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3367-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Mesh in POP surgery should be based on the risk of the procedure, not the risk of recurrence

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2017

Long-term outcomes of TOT and TVT procedures for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center

Utility of anterior vaginal wall length measurement in vaginal reconstructive surgery

Comparison of pelvic floor muscle strength in nulliparous women and those with normal vaginal delivery and cesarean section

Multimodal vaginal toning for bladder symptoms and quality of life in stress urinary incontinence

Vaginal evisceration following colpocleisis