Long-term Data on Graft-Related Complications After Sacrocolpopexy With Lightweight Compared With Heavier-Weight Mesh.
Journal
Obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1873-233X
Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2023
01 01 2023
Historique:
received:
12
06
2022
accepted:
11
08
2022
entrez:
26
1
2023
pubmed:
27
1
2023
medline:
31
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To estimate the long-term incidence and characteristics of graft-related complications, rate of reintervention for graft-related complications and prolapse, and subjective and anatomical outcomes after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with heavier-weight (more than 44 g/m2) compared with lightweight (28 g/m2) polypropylene mesh, the latter with resorbable poliglecaprone component. We conducted a single-center study that compared two consecutive prospective cohorts of patients who were undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for symptomatic stage 2 or greater cervical or vault prolapse, by using either heavier-weight polypropylene mesh or lightweight polypropylene mesh at a similar duration of follow-up. The primary outcome was the occurrence of graft-related complications and their nature. Secondary outcomes included reinterventions for graft-related complications, recurrent apical prolapse, a subjective outcome (PGIC [Patient Global Impression of Change] score 4 or higher), and an anatomical outcome (point C -1 cm or greater). We identified consecutive patients: 101 were implanted with heavier-weight polypropylene, and 238 were implanted with lightweight polypropylene; all were audited at comparable follow-up times (heavier-weight mesh: 97 months [interquartile range 16 months]; lightweight mesh: 92.5 months [interquartile range 58 months]). Graft-related complications were more frequent in patients with heavier-weight than lightweight mesh (22.8% [23/101] vs 7.3% [13/178]; hazard ratio [HR] 3.3, 95% CI 1.6-7.1), more frequently symptomatic (heavier-weight mesh: 16.8% [17/101] vs lightweight mesh: 2.8% [5/178]; HR 6.0, 95% CI 2.5-14.3), and more frequently lead to reintervention for graft-related complications (heavier-weight mesh: 18.8% [19/101] vs lightweight mesh: 2.1% [5/238]; HR 4.6, 95% CI 1.9-11.2). The vast majority of patients improved (PGIC score 4 or higher), without difference between groups (heavier-weight mesh: 71/84 [84.9%]; lightweight mesh: 154/178 [86.5%]; HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1); neither was there a difference in anatomical failure rate (heavier-weight mesh: 1/60 [1.7%] vs lightweight mesh: 8/131 [6.1%]; HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-1.4). Reoperations for recurrent vault prolapse were scarce (0.0% in heavier-weight mesh, vs 0.4% in lightweight mesh). In two consecutive cohorts, the number of graft-related complications, symptomatic graft-related complications, and reinterventions for graft-related complications were higher in patients implanted with heavier-weight polypropylene than when lightweight polypropylene was used. There were no differences in subjective, objective outcomes, and reoperation rates for prolapse. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04378400. To assist in this audit, the University Hospitals Leuven received support from Ethicon Endosurgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36701619
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005021
pii: 00006250-202301000-00021
doi:
Substances chimiques
Polypropylenes
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04378400']
Types de publication
Clinical Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
189-198Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any other potential conflicts of interest.
Références
Baessler K, Christmann‐Schmid C, Maher C, Haya N, Crawford TJ, Brown J. Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018:CD13108. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013108
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013108
Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, et al. 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. Neurourol Urodyn 2011;30:2–12. doi: 10.1002/nau.21036
doi: 10.1002/nau.21036
Ozog Y, Konstantinovic M, Werbrouck E, De Ridder D, Mazza E, Deprest J. Persistence of polypropylene mesh anisotropy after implantation: an experimental study. BJOG 2011;118:1180–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03018.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03018.x
Deprest J, Zheng F, Konstantinovic M, Spelzini F, Claerhout F, Steensma A, et al. The biology behind fascial defects and the use of implants in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2006;17(suppl 1):S16–25. doi: 10.1007/s00192-006-0101-2
doi: 10.1007/s00192-006-0101-2
Konstantinovic ML, Ozog Y, Spelzini F, Pottier C, De Ridder D, Deprest J. Biomechanical findings in rats undergoing fascial reconstruction with graft materials suggested as an alternative to polypropylene. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29:488–93. doi: 10.1002/nau.20755
doi: 10.1002/nau.20755
Ozog Y, Konstantinovic ML, Werbrouck E, De Ridder D, Edoardo M, Deprest J. Shrinkage and biomechanical evaluation of lightweight synthetics in a rabbit model for primary fascial repair. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22:1099–108. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1440-1
doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1440-1
Ozog Y, Mazza E, De Ridder D, Deprest J. Biomechanical effects of polyglecaprone fibers in a polypropylene mesh after abdominal and rectovaginal implantation in a rabbit. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1397–402. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1739-6
doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1739-6
Hympanova L, Rynkevic R, Roman S, Mori da Cunha M, Mazza E, Zundel M, et al. Assessment of electrospun and ultra-lightweight polypropylene meshes in the sheep model for vaginal surgery. Eur Urol Focus 2018;6:190–8. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.07.024
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.07.024
Klosterhalfen B, Klinge U, Hermanns B, Schumpelick V. Pathology of traditional surgical nets for hernia repair after long-term implantation in humans [in German]. Chirurg 2000;71:43–51. doi: doi: 00710043.104 [pii].
doi: doi: 00710043.104 [pii]
Earle DB, Mark LA. Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Clin North Am 2008;88:179–201. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2007.11.002
doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2007.11.002
Liang R, Knight K, Abramowitch S, Moalli PA. Exploring the basic science of prolapse meshes. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2016;28:413–9. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000313
doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000313
van Zanten F, van Iersel JJ, Paulides TJC, Verheijen PM, Broeders I, Consten ECJ, et al. Long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal robotic reconstructive pelvic floor surgery: a prospective study and overview of the literature. Int Urogynecol J 2020;31:1423–33. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-03990-1
doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-03990-1
Askew AL, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Truong T, Siddiqui NY, Bradley MS. Does mesh weight Affect time to failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2020;26:536–40. doi: 10.1097/spv.0000000000000632
doi: 10.1097/spv.0000000000000632
Giugale LE, Hansbarger MM, Askew AL, Visco AG, Shepherd JP, Bradley MS. Assessing pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: does mesh weight matter? Int Urogynecol J 2021;32:2195–201. doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04681-6
doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04681-6
van Zanten F, van Iersel JJ, Hartog FE, Aalders KIM, Lenters E, Broeders I, et al. Mesh exposure after robot-assisted laparoscopic pelvic floor surgery: a prospective cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019;26:636–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.06.015
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2018.06.015
Chapple CR, Cruz F, Deffieux X, Milani AL, Arlandis S, Artibani W, et al. Consensus statement of the European Urology Association and the European Urogynaecological Association on the use of implanted materials for treating pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 2017;72:424–31. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.048
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.048
Management of mesh and graft complications in gynecologic surgery. Committee Opinion No. 694. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e102–8. Doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002022
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002022
Joint position statement on the management of mesh-related complications for the FPMRS specialist. Int Urogynecol J 2020;31:679–94. doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04248-x
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04248-x
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. Opinion on the safety of surgical meshes used in urogynecological surgery. Accessed September 22, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_049.pdf
Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Rommens H, Spelzini F, Vandenbroucke V, et al. Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol 2009;55:1459–67. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.12.008
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.12.008
Pacquee S, Nawapun K, Claerhout F, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, D’Hoore A, et al. Long-term assessment of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2019;134:323–32. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003380
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003380
Claerhout F, Roovers JP, Lewi P, Verguts J, De Ridder D, Deprest J. Implementation of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy—a single centre’s experience. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009;20:1119–25. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0914-x
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0914-x
Claerhout F, Verguts J, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J. Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25:1185–91. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2412-z
doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2412-z
Manodoro S, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Haest K, Corona R, Claerhout F, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2011;3:151–8.
Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:10–7. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0
doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0
Callewaert G, Housmans S, Cattani L, Pacquee S, D’Hoore A, Wyndaele J, et al. Medium-term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polivinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: a matched control study. Neurourol Urodyn 2019;38:1874–82. doi: 10.1002/nau.24083
doi: 10.1002/nau.24083
Gelhorn HL, Coyne KS, Sikirica V, Gauld J, Murphy M. Psychometric evaluation of health-related quality-of-life measures after pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2012;18:221–6. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31825e6707
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31825e6707
Wren PA, Janz NK, Brubaker L, Fitzgerald MP, Weber AM, LaPorte FB, et al. Reliability of health-related quality-of-life measures 1 year after surgical procedures for pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:780–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.603
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.603
Barber M, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler T, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining “success” after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 2009;28:590–1. doi: 10.1002/nau.20808
doi: 10.1002/nau.20808
Lang TA, Altman DG. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the “statistical analyses and methods in the published literature” or the SAMPL guidelines. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52:5–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.09.006
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.09.006
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:573–7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010
Kelly M, Macdougall K, Olabisi O, McGuire N. In vivo response to polypropylene following implantation in animal models: a review of biocompatibility. Int Urogynecol J 2017;28:171–80. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3029-1
doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3029-1
Liu CK, Tsai CP, Chou MM, Shen PS, Chen GD, Hung YC, et al. A comparative study of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and total vaginal mesh procedure using lightweight polypropylene meshes for prolapse repair. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2014;53:552–8. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2014.07.006
doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2014.07.006
Salamon C, Lewis C, Shariati A, Priestley J, Gurshumov E, Culligan P. Prospective cohort study of robotic sacrocolpopexy using lightweight polypropylene Y-mesh. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18:S40–1. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-2021-7
doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-2021-7
Culligan PJ, Gurshumov E, Lewis C, Priestley JL, Komar J, Shah N, et al. Subjective and objective results 1 year after robotic sacrocolpopexy using a lightweight Y-mesh. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25:731–5. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2265-x
doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2265-x
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA safety communication: urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. 2012. Accessed March 1, 2022. https://www.fda.gov/files/medical%20devices/published/Urogynecologic-Surgical-Mesh--Update-on-the-Safety-and-Effectiveness-of-Transvaginal-Placement-for-Pelvic-Organ-Prolapse-%28July-2011%29.pdf
Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2014;66:303–18. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053