Mesh procedures not recommended for primary prolapse repair | Lancet

  • Lancet

  • from Sarfaroj Khan
  • Clinical Summaries
Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Takeaway 

  • Mesh procedures for incontinence are associated with a lower risk for complications and subsequent surgery than open colposuspension.
  • Mesh procedures for anterior and posterior compartment prolapse are associated with poor outcomes and complications compared with non-mesh repairs.

Why this matters 

  • Concerns have been raised about the safety of surgery for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse using transvaginal mesh.

Key results

  • 16,660 (62%) of 26,885 underwent a first, single incontinence procedure.
  • Compared with non-mesh open surgery (colposuspension), mesh procedures had:

        —   lower risk for immediate complications (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.44).

        —   subsequent prolapse surgery (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 0.30 for retropubic and 0.26 for transobturator mesh).

        —   further incontinence surgery admissions (aIRR, 0.90) and later complications (aIRR, 1.12).

  • 18,986 (24.5%) of 77,537 women underwent a first, single prolapse procedure.
  • Compared with non-mesh repair, mesh repair of anterior compartment prolapse was associated with:

        —   similar risk for immediate complications (aRR, 0·93).

        —   an increased risk for further incontinence (aIRR, 3.20), prolapse surgery (aIRR, 1.69) and later complications (aIRR, 3.15).

Study design

  • Population-based cohort study used a national hospital admission database to extract data for all women (age, ≥20 y) who underwent incontinence and prolapse procedures between 1997 and 2016 in Scotland, UK.
  • Funding: None.

Limitations

  • Results restricted to women undergoing first, single incontinence or prolapse procedures.