Perceived health status after mid-urethral sling revision in 287 women from the VIGI-MESH registry: A cross-sectional study.
cross‐sectional study
mid‐urethral sling
perceived health status
revision surgery
Journal
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
ISSN: 1471-0528
Titre abrégé: BJOG
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100935741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 May 2024
08 May 2024
Historique:
revised:
12
04
2024
received:
25
09
2023
accepted:
15
04
2024
medline:
9
5
2024
pubmed:
9
5
2024
entrez:
9
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate the health status and recovery of women after mid-urethral sling (MUS) revision in response to complications. Cross-sectional study using a questionnaire sent to women from a registry. Twenty-two French surgical centres. A total of 287 women from the VIGI-MESH registry responded, having undergone MUS revision for complications. Our sample of women were compared against a representative set of French women taken from the Eurostat database. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors for successful MUS revision. A qualitative analysis was carried out on free-text comments. Health status, defined by the Minimum European Health Module, and recovery, assessed by Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The response rate was 76% (287/378), with 49% of the women (141/287, 95% CI 43%-55%) reporting good health status, which was 8 points lower than that expected from the comparator French set (57%, 95% CI 55%-58%). Overall, 53% (147/275, 95% CI 47%-59%) of the women reported feeling much better after MUS revision. Just over one-third (35%, 95/275, 95% CI 29%-40%) of respondents reported poor health with little or no improvement. Multivariate analysis showed that being operated on for pain at revision was associated with worse self-perceived health than being operated on for exposure (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.14-0.95); women with pre-existing comorbidity reported a poorer health status following MUS revision (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13-0.38). Our results suggest that half of the women recovered good health status after MUS revision, whereas a proportion appeared to be seriously affected by an MUS complication despite the revision.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38720185
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17835
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Aoki Y, Brown HW, Brubaker L, Cornu JN, Daly JO, Cartwright R. Urinary incontinence in women. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17042. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2017.42
Komesu YM, Schrader RM, Ketai LH, Rogers RG, Dunivan GC. Epidemiology of mixed, stress, and urgency urinary incontinence in middle‐aged/older women: the importance of incontinence history. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(5):763–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192‐015‐2888‐1
Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–1206. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286
ANSM. Implants de renfort dans le traitement de l'incontinence urinaire et du prolapsus des organes pelviens. Etat du marché français sur la période 2014–2017. 2018. [cited 2022 Aug 3]. Available from: https://ansm.sante.fr/uploads/2022/08/03/rapport‐etat‐du‐marche‐mesh‐donnees‐2018‐2019.pdf
Fritel X, Campagne‐Loiseau S, Cosson M, Ferry P, Saussine C, Lucot JP, et al. Complications after pelvic floor repair surgery (with and without mesh): short‐term incidence after 1873 inclusions in the French VIGI‐MESH registry. BJOG. 2020;127(1):88–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐0528.15956
Armengaud C, Fauconnier A, Drioueche H, Campagne Loiseau S, de Tayrac R, Saussine C, et al. Serious complications and recurrences after retropubic vs transobturator midurethral sling procedures for 2682 patients in the VIGI‐MESH register. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;230:428.e1–428.e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.11.1241
Chapple CR, Raz S, Brubaker L, Zimmern PE. Mesh sling in an era of uncertainty: lessons learned and the way forward. Eur Urol. 2013;64(4):525–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.045
Dray E, Crosby E, Grable A, Crescenze I, Stoffel J, Clemens JQ, et al. A retrospective analysis of surgical outcomes and risk factors for persistent postoperative symptoms following synthetic mid urethral sling revision. J Urol. 2019;202(2):339–346. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000246
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. NeurourolUrodyn. 2011;30(1):2–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.21036
Home – Eurostat [En ligne] [consulté le: 10 août 2022]. Disponible sur: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/fr/
Dauphin L, Eideliman S. Élargir les sources d'étude quantitative de la population handicapée: Que vaut l'indicateur «GALI»? 2021. p. 30.
Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):98–101. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.379
Indicateurs EHIS [En ligne] [consulté le: 10 août 2022]. Disponible sur: https://data.drees.solidarites‐sante.gouv.fr/explore/dataset/indicateurs‐ehis/table/
Kolotkin RL, Meter K, Williams GR. Quality of life and obesity. Obes Rev. 2001;2(4):219–229. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467‐789x.2001.00040.x
Tabagisme, conséquences sur la santé – Santé publique France [En ligne] [consulté le: 28 juillet 2022]. Disponible sur: https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/determinants‐de‐sante/tabac/quelles‐sont‐les‐consequences‐du‐tabagisme‐sur‐la‐sante
Kowalik CR, Lakeman MME, Zwolsman SE, Roovers J‐PWR. Efficacy of surgical revision of mesh complications in prolapse and urinary incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(8):2257–2264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192‐020‐04543‐7
Kim‐Fine S, el‐Nashar SA, Linder BJ, Casiano ER, Woelk JL, Gebhart JB, et al. Patient satisfaction after sling revision for voiding dysfunction after sling placement. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(3):140–145. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000242
Pace N, Artsen A, Baranski L, Palcsey S, Durst R, Meyn L, et al. Symptomatic improvement after mesh removal: a prospective longitudinal study of women with urogynaecological mesh complications. BJOG. 2021;128(12):2034–2043. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐0528.16778
Uberoi P, Lee W, Lucioni A, Kobashi KC, Berry DL, Lee UJ. Listening to women: a qualitative analysis of experiences after complications from mesh mid‐urethral sling surgery. Urology. 2021;148:106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.11.006
Greer JA, Northington GM, Harvie HS, Segal S, Johnson JC, Arya LA. Functional status and postoperative morbidity in older women with prolapse. J Urol. 2013;190(3):948–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.03.004
Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. Lancet. 2006;367(9522):1618–1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140‐6736(06)68700‐X
Jong K, Popat S, Christie A, Zimmern PE. Is pain relief after vaginal mesh and/or sling removal durable long term? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):859–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192‐017‐3413‐5
Clancy AA, Gauthier I, Ramirez FD, Hickling D, Pascali D. Predictors of sling revision after mid‐urethral sling procedures: a case‐control study. BJOG. 2019;126(3):419–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐0528.15470
Abraham AM, Scott KM, Christie A, Morita‐Nagai P, Chhabra A, Zimmern PE. Outcomes following multidisciplinary management of women with residual pelvic pain and dyspareunia following synthetic vaginal mesh and/or mesh sling removal. J Womens Health Phys Therap. 2019;43(4):171–179. https://doi.org/10.1097/JWH.0000000000000140