Latency to vaginal mesh exposure with mesh placed abdominally versus vaginally in pelvic floor surgery: A retrospective comparative study.

The primary aim was to compare the difference in time to mesh exposure between mesh placed abdominally versus vaginally. This is a retrospective comparative study of patients presented with vaginal mesh exposure between January 2001 and July 2012. This study compares patients who had undergone vaginally placed mesh procedures to those who had had abdominally placed mesh. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to measure the time to mesh exposure. There were 68 patients with mesh exposure in our cohort. Thirty eight patients had undergone vaginal placement of mesh and 30 patients had abdominal mesh. There was a statistically significant difference in time to mesh exposure between abdominal and vaginal meshes (p≤.0001). Mean time to vaginal mesh exposure with abdominal mesh was 59.8 months (95%CI 46.2-73.3) compared to 23 months (95%CI 15.9-30.2) for vaginal mesh. When controlling for age, BMI and surgeon at index surgery, the Hazard Ratio for mesh exposure in our Cox Regression model was 0.53 (95%CI 0.39-0.71) (p ≤.0001). The mean time to vaginal mesh exposure after abdominal mesh was longer compared to the time to exposure with vaginally placed mesh (60 versus 23 months, p ≤.0001). These results support the evolving evidence that mesh exposures can occur many years distant from the procedure and warrant some level of surveillance or provision of warning signs by the providers who perform procedures with mesh.

Preoperative Prolapse Stage as Predictor of Failure of Sacrocolpopexy.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine if there was a correlation between the preoperative prolapse stage and postoperative recurrence of prolapse 1 year after sacrocolpopexy. Our null hypothesis is that the preoperative stage of prolapse does not increase the risk of recurrence. METHODS: This is a multicenter cohort study from 3 centers. We included subjects who underwent robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and completed a standardized 1-year follow-up from 2009-2014. All subjects underwent a complete preoperative evaluation and completed 12 months of follow-up with the pelvic organ prolapse quantification examination. We compared those subjects who met the definition of recurrence with those who did not, analyzing the following covariates: stage of prolapse using International Continence Society (ICS) definitions, individual pelvic organ prolapse quantification points, age, body mass index, race, exogenous estrogen use, menopause, smoking, vaginal parity, cesarean section, and performance of concomitant procedures. We defined recurrence as any prolapse beyond the hymen. RESULTS: We had 125 women from 3 centers who met our criteria, with 23.2% of them having recurrence at 1 year. We found that recurrence increased as the preoperative ICS stage of prolapse increased (P = <0.001 in the univariate model). In the multivariate model, using logistic regression, we found that the risk of recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse increased as the presurgery clinical stage increased with an odds ratio of 3.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-9) when controlling for age, menopausal status, and genital hiatus (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Much like a higher stage of disease in oncology, we found that increasing stage of prolapse preoperatively increased the risk of recurrence at 1 year after sacrocolpopexy.