Use and risks of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse surgery in women in New York state: population based cohort study

Mesh-less laparoscopic extraperitoneal linear suspension treatment of vaginal vault prolapse

OBJECTIVES

To report the results of a mesh-less laparoscopic extraperitoneal linear suspension technique for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (PHVP).

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective observational study was conducted collecting medical records of 41 patients with symptomatic PHVP treated between November 2017 to November 2019 in Gynecologic department of China-Japan Friendship Hospital. All patients had Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scores indicating stage 3-4 PHVP and underwent mesh-less laparoscopic extraperitoneal linear suspension.The primary outcome was the subjective satisfaction rate based on responses to validated questionnaires. The secondary outcomes were the objective anatomical cure rate based on POP-Q scores and complication rates. All listed parameters were determined before the surgery and at control examinations in 1 year and 3 years after the treatment.

RESULTS

The operation was completed successfully without serious complications in all patients. Mean operation time was 53.8 mins. Comparison of the scores by the questionnaires revealed a significant improvement in the quality of life in the postoperative period.The subjective satisfaction rates were 100 % (41/41) and 95 % (38/40) at 1 year and 3 years after surgery. The objective cure rates were 100 % (41/41) and 97.5 % (39/40) at 1 year and 3 years after surgery, respectively. During the follow-up, none of the patients experienced suture exposure, infection, chronic pelvic pain, or other related complications.

CONCLUSION

The mesh-less laparoscopic extraperitoneal linear suspension technique avoids the use of implantable synthetic mesh. It has been shown to lead to favorable postoperative outcomes, considerable patient contentment, and low complication rates. It offers a new, cost-effective treatment option for PHVP patients.

Electrospun nanofiber mesh with connective tissue growth factor and mesenchymal stem cells for pelvic floor repair: Long-term study

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects many women, with an estimated lifetime risk of surgical intervention of 18.7%. There is a need for alternative approaches as the use of synthetic nondegradable mesh was stopped due to severe adverse events, and as current methods for pelvic floor repair have high POP recurrence rates. Thus, we hypothesized that electrospun degradable meshes with stem cells and growth factor were safe and durable for the long term in elderly rats. In an abdominal repair model, electrospun polycaprolactone (PCL) meshes coated with connective tissue growth factor (CTGF)/PEG-fibrinogen (PF) and rat mesenchymal stem cells were implanted in elderly female rats and removed after in average 53 weeks (53-week group). Collagen amount and production were quantified by qPCR and Western blotting. Moreover, histological appearance and biomechanical properties were evaluated. Results were compared with previous results of young rats with identical mesh implanted for 24 weeks (24-week group). The 53-week group differed from the 24-week group in terms of (1) reduced collagen III, (2) strong reduction in foreign body response, and (3) altered histological appearance. We found comparable biomechanical properties, aside from higher, not significant, mean tissue stiffness in the 53-week group. Lastly, we identified mesh components 53 weeks after implantation. This study provides new insights into future POP repair in postmenopausal women by showing how CTGF/PF-coated electrospun PCL meshes with stem cells exhibit sufficient support, biocompatibility, and no mesh-related complications long term in an abdominal repair model in elderly rats.

Advancing the Real-World Evidence for Medical Devices through Coordinated Registry Networks

Objectives

Generating and using real-world evidence (RWE) is a pragmatic solution for evaluating health technologies. RWE is recognized by regulators, health technology assessors, clinicians, and manufacturers as a valid source of information to support their decision-making. Well-designed registries can provide RWE and become more powerful when linked with electronic health records and administrative databases in coordinated registry networks (CRNs). Our objective was to create a framework of maturity of CRNs and registries, so guiding their development and the prioritization of funding.

Design setting and participants

We invited 52 stakeholders from diverse backgrounds including patient advocacy groups, academic, clinical, industry and regulatory experts to participate on a Delphi survey. Of those invited, 42 participated in the survey to provide feedback on the maturity framework for CRNs and registries. An expert panel reviewed the responses to refine the framework until the target consensus of 80% was reached. Two rounds of the Delphi were distributed via Qualtrics online platform from July to August 2020 and from October to November 2020.

Main outcome measures

Consensus on the maturity framework for CRNs and registries consisted of seven domains (unique device identification, efficient data collection, data quality, product life cycle approach, governance and sustainability, quality improvement, and patient-reported outcomes), each presented with five levels of maturity.

Results

Of 52 invited experts, 41 (79.9%) responded to round 1; all 41 responded to round 2; and consensus was reached for most domains. The expert panel resolved the disagreements and final consensus estimates ranged from 80.5% to 92.7% for seven domains.

Conclusions

We have developed a robust framework to assess the maturity of any CRN (or registry) to provide reliable RWE. This framework will promote harmonization of approaches to RWE generation across different disciplines and health systems. The domains and their levels may evolve over time as new solutions become available.

Development of a coordinated registry network for pelvic organ prolapse technologies

Objectives

The accumulation of data through a prospective, multicenter Coordinated Registry Network (CRN) could be a robust and cost-effective way to gather real-world evidence on the performance of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) technologies for device-based and intervention-based studies. To develop the CRN, a group of POP experts consisting of representatives from professional societies, the Food and Drug Administration, academia, industry, and the patient community, was convened to discuss the role and feasibility of the CRN and to identify the core data elements important to assess POP technologies.

Design

A Delphi method approach was employed to achieve consensus on a core minimum dataset for the CRN. A series of surveys were sent to the panel and answered by each expert anonymously and individually. Results from the surveys were collected, collated, and analyzed by the study design team from Weill Cornell Medicine. Questions for the next round were based on the analysis process and discussed with group members via conference call. This process was repeated twice over a 6-month time period during which consensus was achieved.

Results

Twenty-one experts participated in the effort and proposed 120 data elements. Participation rates in the first and second round of the Delphi survey were 95.2% and 71.4%, respectively. The working group reached final consensus among responders on 90 data elements capturing relevant general medical and surgical history, procedure and discharge, short-term and long-term follow-up, device factors, and surgery and surgeon factors.

Conclusions

The CRN successfully developed a set of core data elements to support the study of POP technologies through convening an expert panel on POP technologies and using the Delphi method. These standardized data elements have the potential to influence patient and provider decisions about treatments and include important outcomes related to efficacy and safety.

How is pain associated with pelvic mesh implants measured? Refinement of the construct and a scoping review of current assessment tools

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for the management of pain related to pelvic mesh implants are still under development. One limitation that has impeded progress in this area is that mesh-related pain has not been consistently defined or measured. Here, we reviewed the ways in which pain associated with pelvic mesh implants has been measured, and mapped the ways in which these existing measures capture the construct.

METHODS

First, we reviewed existing accounts of the pain associated with pelvic mesh implants to develop a multifaceted construct definition, which includes aspects related to pain intensity, timing, body location, phenomenological qualities, impact/interference with daily living, and patient expectations and beliefs. Next, we reviewed the ways that the construct has been measured in the extant literature.

RESULTS

Within 333 eligible studies, 28 different assessments of pain associated with pelvic mesh were identified, and 61% of studies reported using more than one measurement tool. Questionnaire measures included measures designed to assess urological and/or pelvic symptoms, generic measures and unvalidated measures. We did not identify any validated questionnaire measures designed to assess pain associated with pelvic mesh implants. The phenomenological, location, and expectation/belief components of the construct were not captured well by the identified questionnaire measures, and there is no evidence that any of the identified measures have appropriate psychometric properties for the assessment of pain related to pelvic mesh implants.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend further qualitative research regarding women's experiences of pelvic mesh-related pain assessment, and the development of a condition-specific patient reported outcome measure.

Postoperative indications for further surgery following post-transvaginal ProliftTM mesh repair after a two-year follow-up period: a single-centre study

We investigated the frequency of further surgery post-artificial mesh (Prolift^TM) repair of pelvic organ prolapse. In total, 257 patients who underwent Prolift^TM repair were evaluated for further surgery frequency, clinical outcomes, and demographic characteristics. Thirty-eight (14.7%) patients underwent further surgery (median time to reoperation, 9.5 months; range, 6-22 months). Six (2.3%) patients underwent prolapse repair at a different (5 patients, 1.9%) or same site (1 patient, 0.3%). One underwent posterior Prolift^TM repair; four, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy; and one, vaginal hysterectomy. Eight (3.1%) underwent surgery for complications; seven (2.7%) required further surgery for mesh exposure (median, 8 months) and one (0.3%) required further surgery for mesh infection (1 month). Twenty-four (9.3%) received further surgery for stress urinary incontinence (median, 8.5 months). Despite the low frequency of further surgery post-Prolift^TM repair, mesh-related complications should be considered. Careful long-term follow-up is necessary.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? It is widely known that vaginal mesh is used as treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Vaginal mesh is one of the treatment options for POP. However, it received a bad reputation following reports of complications associated with its use, leading to discontinuation of vaginal mesh in many countries.What the results of this study revealed? The findings of this study show that few patients who received Prolift^TM repair required further surgery. The surgeries included surgery for non-POP-related conditions; subsequent surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI); surgery for complications including mesh exposure and infection; primary prolapse surgery for a different site and repeat surgery; and a repeat operation for prolapse arising from the same site.What are the implications of these findings in clinical practice and/or further research? Based on the outcome of this study, transvaginal Prolift^TM mesh repair is a reasonably safe and effective treatment for POP. Despite withdrawal of all mesh products from the market as instructed by the FDA, this study suggested the need to re-evaluate the role of vaginal mesh as a treatment option for POP.

Short term complications in mesh augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not higher when compared with native tissue repair

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Accumulating evidence regarding the negative long-term consequences of transvaginal mesh-based procedures for pelvic organ prolapse has led to a sharp decline in mesh-based procedures. We aimed to evaluate the short-term complications of mesh-based procedures for carefully selected patients with pelvic organ prolapse after Food and Drug Administration warnings.

METHODS

A retrospective database review of the ACS NSQIP database was completed to examine 30-day complications including re-operation, prolonged length of stay, blood transfusion, surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, readmission and wound dehiscence in mesh-augmented and native tissue-based transvaginal procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.

RESULTS

A total of 36,234 patients were included in the analysis, with only 7.1% (2574 women) having mesh-augmented repair. Using a multivariable logistical regression analysis adjusting for confounders, we found that the primary composite outcome (re-operation, hospital stay, blood transfusion and surgical site infection) was less common in the mesh group compared with the native tissue repair group (adjusted OR 0.80, CI 0.67-0.95, p = 0.009). The secondary outcomes (urinary tract infection, re-admission and wound dehiscence) were not different between the group.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that in well-chosen patients, short-term complications are not increased when using transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Opioid prescribing and risks among commercially insured women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse repair

PURPOSE

Opioid use after surgical repair for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is intended for short-term post-operative pain. This study compared the incidence of opioid prescribing in women undergoing POP transabdominal repair with mesh and transvaginal native tissue repair.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of women undergoing POP transabdominal repair with mesh or transvaginal native tissue repair, was derived from a 10% random sample of enrollees from 2007 to 2015 within the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus Database. Primary outcomes were any prescription of opioids and cumulative days of opioids prescribed in the 14- 180 days following surgical intervention. Inverse probability of treatment weights controlled for observed baseline confounders. Any opioid prescription was estimated using logistic regression and generalized linear regression for cumulative days of opioids prescribed.

RESULTS

The cohort of 49 052 women who underwent POP surgical repair included 46 813 women with transvaginal native tissue repair and 2239 women with transabdominal repair with mesh. Women with a transabdominal repair with mesh had a 1.19 (95%CI: 1.09-1.31) significantly higher odds of receiving an opioid prescription than women with transvaginal native tissue repair. Post-operatively, over 29% of women received opioid prescriptions. Mean cumulative days of post-surgical opioid prescribing was 32.2 (SD = 43.1), and was not statistically different between groups. Thirteen percent of women were prescribed opioids for 90 days or more.

CONCLUSIONS

Women undergoing POP with transabdominal mesh are more likely to receive prescriptions for opioids after surgery compared to transvaginal native tissue repair. Treatment plans that address pain while mitigating the risks associated with prolonged opioid prescribing should be employed.

Food and Drug Administration Safety Communication on the Use of Transvaginal Mesh in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Surgery: The Impact of Social Determinants of Health

OBJECTIVE

This study was to examine the impact of the July 2011 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication on the use of transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair by patients' race and ethnicity.

METHODS

We conducted an observational cohort study of women undergoing POP repairs in 2008 to 2015 in New York State. We examined the changes in transvaginal mesh use in POP repairs before and after the FDA communication by patients' race and ethnicity. Piecewise logistic regression models were used to assess the trends of mesh use, adjusting for patient characteristics. We performed a subgroup analysis of the trends of transvaginal mesh use by racial groups, stratifying by patients' neighborhood socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

We included 49,848 women (78% white, 7% black, and 15% Hispanic) with an average ± SD age of 60.2 ± 13.0 years. After the safety communication, the use of transvaginal mesh in POP repairs decreased among white women (odds ratio [OR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.50) and African Americans (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35-0.67) but remained stable among Hispanic women (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.11). Only in the subgroup of patients from high-income areas, there was a trend toward decreasing mesh use among Hispanic patients after 2011 (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The communications related to the safety of transvaginal mesh did not have an equal impact across racial groups. Mesh use decreased among white and African American women but not among Hispanic women after the 2011 FDA safety communication. Particular attention is warranted for patients from disadvantaged groups, especially low-income minorities, when disseminating medical device safety messages.

Inaccuracies in News Media Reporting About the 2019 US Food and Drug Administration Ban on Transvaginal Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair

OBJECTIVE

To analyze inaccuracies in the news media reporting of the 2019 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ban on surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

We queried the NexisUni media database for English-language news articles about "transvaginal mesh" or "FDA" published before and after the ban. Content analysis was based on discussion of the ban, indications for surgical mesh, and assessment of bias. We characterized public interest in transvaginal mesh using Google Trends.

RESULTS

Of 290 news articles reviewed, 42 articles were included for analysis. Public interest in transvaginal mesh increased 4-fold after the FDA announcement. While 15 articles (38%) accurately reported that mesh was used in both POP and incontinence repairs, a plurality (18, 43%) only described using mesh for POP. The majority (30, 71%) of articles did not specify that the FDA ban applied to only transvaginal repair of POP and not to incontinence. Despite multiple professional societies affirming the use of mesh for incontinence, only 2 (5%) articles cited these evidence-based recommendations. About half of the articles had an overtly biased tone; articles with an anti-mesh bias were significantly less likely to identify the mesh indications relevant to the ban (P <.01).

CONCLUSION

Seventy percent of news reports about the 2019 FDA ban on transvaginal mesh for POP failed to distinguish between the clinical indications for mesh impacted by the ban. The findings raise concern about patient perceptions of and future access to mesh surgery, regardless of indication.

Creation and Validation of Linkage Between Orthopedic Registry and Administrative Data Using Indirect Identifiers

BACKGROUND

Registries and administrative databases have unique and complementary strengths in device epidemiologic studies. We sought to develop, validate, and assess a sequential algorithm using indirect identifiers to link registry and administrative data.

METHODS

Hip and knee arthroplasty procedures performed at 6 New York State hospitals enrolled in American Joint Replacement Registry in 2014 were included. After conducting a direct linkage using patient identifiers including name and social security numbers, we validated the methodology of indirect linkage using facility ID, patients' year and month of birth, sex, and zip code, and procedure date and site (hip/knee). We further evaluated the influence of absent indirect identifier(s) and compromised data quality on linkage success.

RESULTS

Using our sequential algorithm, 3739 of the 4063 directly linked records (92.03%) were matched with indirect identifiers, with an accuracy of >99.9%. Main reasons for nonmatching included discrepancies in procedure codes and dates. When one of the indirect identifiers was not available, the linkage algorithm still achieved over 90% sensitivity and 99.8% accuracy. Analyses showed that the algorithm was robust when quality of data was moderately compromised.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated high sensitivity and accuracy of an algorithm to create linkages between a registry and an administrative database using indirect identifiers. The methodology will enable long-term surveillance and outcome assessment of a wide variety of devices and procedures. Variations in the coding of procedures, availability of indirect identifiers, and their quality have limited impact on this algorithm.

Use of the IDEAL framework in the urological literature: where are we in 2018?

OBJECTIVES

To assess uptake and application of the IDEAL principles in original surgical procedure- or device-related clinical research studies, as well as its reported relevance as characterized by secondary publications, editorials and reviews.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) is a framework that provides stage-specific guidance for surgical innovation and represented a major advance towards raising evidential standards. We performed a comprehensive literature search of all urology-related publications citing one or more of seven key publications on IDEAL in The Lancet and BMJ using multiple databases up to 31 December 2017.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 150 urology-related manuscripts citing IDEAL, of which 83 (55.3%) were original research and 67 (44.7%) were secondary publications. Among the original research articles, 40 (48.2%) did not explicitly apply IDEAL principles or were not surgical innovation studies. The IDEAL phases of the 43 (51.8%) remaining original research studies were IDEAL, in nine (20.9%), 27 (62.8%), four (9.3%), 0 (0%), and three publications (7.0%), respectively. Across IDEAL stages, 30 (75.0%) studies were prospective, 29 (85.3%) reported ethical oversight, and 39 (90.7%) captured treatment-related harms. None of the studies collected information on physician experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The IDEAL framework has found widespread adoption in the urology literature as witnessed by a large number of original manuscripts and secondary publications citing IDEAL; however, its application is largely limited to the early stages of surgical innovation, frequently with inappropriate and incomplete implementation. Further efforts are needed to guide investigators in the optimal use of the IDEAL framework as it relates to surgical innovation in urology.

Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8 year study of 92,246 women

Complications of surgical mesh procedures have led to legal cases against manufacturers worldwide and to national inquiries about their safety. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of adverse events of these procedures for stress urinary incontinence in England over 8 years. This was a retrospective cohort study of first-time tension-free vaginal tape (TVT), trans-obturator tape (TOT) or suprapubic sling (SS) surgical mesh procedures between April 2007 and March 2015. Cases were identified from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Outcomes included number and type of procedures, including those potentially confounded by concomitant procedures, and frequency, nature and timing of complications. 92,246 first-time surgical mesh procedures (56,648 TVT, 34,704 TOT, 834 SS and 60 combinations) were identified, including 68,002 unconfounded procedures. Peri-procedural and 30-day complication rates in the unconfounded cohort were 2.4 [2.3–2.5]% and 1.7 [1.6–1.8]% respectively; 5.9 [5.7–6.1]% were readmitted at least once within 5 years for further mesh intervention or symptoms of complications, the highest risk being within the first 2 years. Complication rates were higher in the potentially confounded cohort. The complication rate within 5 years of the mesh procedure was 9.8 [9.6:10.0]% This evidence can inform future decision-making on this procedure.

Challenging the Myth: Transvaginal Mesh is Not Associated with Carcinogenesis

PURPOSE

We sought to determine if there was a potential link between synthetic polypropylene mesh implantation for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, and carcinogenesis using statewide administrative data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women who underwent transvaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence with mesh between January 2008 and December 2009 in New York State were identified using ICD-9-CM procedure codes and CPT-4 codes. Patients in the mesh cohort were individually matched to 2 control cohorts based on comorbidities and procedure date. Carcinogenesis was determined before and after matching at 1, 2 and 3 years, and during the entire followup time.

RESULTS

A total of 2,229 patients who underwent mesh based pelvic organ prolapse surgery and 10,401 who underwent sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence between January 2008 and December 2009 were included in the study. Mean followup was 6 years (range 5 to 7). Exact matching between the mesh and control cohorts resulted in 1,870 pairs for pelvic organ prolapse mesh and cholecystectomy (1:2), 1,278 pairs for pelvic organ prolapse mesh and hysterectomy (1:1), 7,986 pairs for sling and cholecystectomy (1:1) and 3,810 pairs for sling and hysterectomy (1:1). Transvaginal mesh implantation was not associated with an increased risk of a cancer diagnosis (pelvic/local cancers or any cancer) at 1 year and during the entire followup of up to 7 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Transvaginal surgery with implantation of mesh was not associated with the development of malignancy at a mean followup of 6 years.

Is vaginal mesh a stimulus of autoimmune disease?

BACKGROUND

Polypropylene mesh has been used as a means of reinforcing weak tissues in women with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate a potential link between the development of systemic/autoimmune disorders and synthetic polypropylene mesh repairs.

STUDY DESIGN

New York State Department of Health Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System data were utilized to conduct this retrospective cohort study. Adult women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse with vaginally implanted mesh from January 2008 through December 2009 in inpatient and ambulatory surgery settings in New York State were identified. Two separate control cohorts were created to compare outcomes, including a screening colonoscopy cohort and a vaginal hysterectomy cohort for benign gynecologic conditions (without pelvic organ prolapse repair or sling). Patients in the mesh cohort were individually matched to the control cohorts based on demographics, comorbidities, and procedure date. The development of systemic/autoimmune disease was determined before and after matching for 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, and entire follow-up (up to 6 years until December 2014) and differences between groups were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 2102 patients underwent mesh-based pelvic organ prolapse surgery from January 2008 through December 2009. In the control cohorts, 37,298 patients underwent colonoscopy and 7338 underwent vaginal hysterectomy. When patients were matched based on demographics, comorbidities, and procedure time, mesh-based surgery was not associated with an increased risk of developing autoimmune disease at any of the evaluated time periods.

CONCLUSION

Mesh-based vaginal surgery was not associated with the development of systemic/autoimmune diseases. These data refute claims against mesh as a cause of systemic disease.

Cross-sectional observational study of the availability of evidence supporting novel implantable devices used in gastrointestinal surgery

BACKGROUND

Evidence supporting the implementation of novel surgical devices is unstandardized, despite recommendations for assessing novel innovations. This study aimed to determine the proportion of novel implantable devices used in gastrointestinal surgery that are supported by evidence from RCTs.

METHODS

A list of novel implantable devices placed intra-abdominally during gastrointestinal surgery was produced. Systematic searches were performed for all devices via PubMed and clinical trial registries. The primary outcome measure was the availability of at least one published RCT for each device. Published RCTs were appraised using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

A total of 116 eligible devices were identified (implantable mesh 42, topical haemostatics 22, antiadhesion barriers 10, gastric bands 8, suture and staple-line reinforcement 7, artificial sphincters 5, other 22). One hundred and twenty-eight published RCTs were found for 33 of 116 devices (28·4 per cent). Most were assessed as having a high risk of bias, with only 12 of 116 devices (10·3 per cent) supported by a published RCT considered to be low risk. A further 95 ongoing and 23 unpublished RCTs were identified for 42 of 116 devices (36·2 per cent), but many (64 of 116, 55·2 per cent) had no evidence from published, ongoing or unpublished RCTs. The highest stage of innovation according to the IDEAL Framework was stage 1 for 11 devices, stage 2a for 23 devices, stage 2b for one device and stage 3 for 33 devices. The remaining 48 devices had no relevant clinical evidence.

CONCLUSION

Only one in ten novel implantable devices available for use in gastrointestinal surgical practice is supported by high-quality RCT evidence.

Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997-2016: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Concerns have been raised about the safety of surgery for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse using transvaginal mesh. We assessed adverse outcomes after first, single mesh procedures and comparable non-mesh procedures.

METHODS

We did a cohort study of women in Scotland aged 20 years or older undergoing a first, single incontinence procedure or prolapse procedure during 1997-98 to 2015-16 identified from a national hospital admission database. Primary outcomes were immediate postoperative complications and subsequent (within 5 years) readmissions for later postoperative complications, further incontinence surgery, or further prolapse surgery. Poisson regression models were used to compare outcomes after procedures carried out with and without mesh.

FINDINGS

Between April 1, 1997, and March 31, 2016, 16 660 women underwent a first, single incontinence procedure, 13 133 (79%) of which used mesh. Compared with non-mesh open surgery (colposuspension), mesh procedures had a lower risk of immediate complications (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 0·44 [95% CI 0·36-0·55]) and subsequent prolapse surgery (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0·30 [0·24-0·39]), and a similar risk of further incontinence surgery (0·90 [0·73-1·11]) and later complications (1·12 [0·98-1·27]); all ratios are for retropubic mesh. During the same time period, 18 986 women underwent a first, single prolapse procedure, 1279 (7%) of which used mesh. Compared with non-mesh repair, mesh repair of anterior compartment prolapse was associated with a similar risk of immediate complications (aRR 0·93 [95% CI 0·49-1·79]); an increased risk of further incontinence (aIRR 3·20 [2·06-4·96]) and prolapse surgery (1·69 [1·29-2·20]); and a substantially increased risk of later complications (3·15 [2·46-4·04]). Compared with non-mesh repair, mesh repair of posterior compartment prolapse was associated with a similarly increased risk of repeat prolapse surgery and later complications. No difference in any outcome was observed between vaginal and, separately, abdominal mesh repair of vaginal vault prolapse compared with vaginal non-mesh repair.

INTERPRETATION

Our results support the use of mesh procedures for incontinence, although further research on longer term outcomes would be beneficial. Mesh procedures for anterior and posterior compartment prolapse cannot be recommended for primary prolapse repair. Both vaginal and abdominal mesh procedures for vaginal vault prolapse repair are associated with similar effectiveness and complication rates to non-mesh vaginal repair. These results therefore do not clearly favour any particular vault repair procedure.

FUNDING

None.

Mesh removal after vaginal surgery: what happens in the UK?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

There is little objective evidence regarding complication rates for mesh procedures outside clinical trials. Current coding poorly collects complications of prolapse and continence surgery using mesh. This survey was designed to identify surgeons performing mesh removal and reporting patterns in the UK.

METHODS

An electronic questionnaire was sent to all members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and members of the Section of Female Neurological and Urodynamic Urology of the British Association of Urologists in the UK. The questionnaire aimed to identify the number of procedures performed for mesh complications and whether they were reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the patterns of referral and treatment RESULTS: Referral to a colleague in the same hospital was common practice (69 %). Only 27 % of respondents stated that they reported all removals to the MHRA. The numbers of surgical procedures were low, with most respondents performing between one and three procedures each year and many not performing any surgery for a specific mesh complication in the previous year.

CONCLUSIONS

Removal of exposed, eroded and/or painful vaginally inserted mesh is performed by many different surgeons in a variety of hospital settings in the UK.

Trends in internet search activity, media coverage, and patient-centered health information after the FDA safety communications on surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION

In July 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication regarding serious complications associated with surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse, prompting increased media and public attention. This study sought to analyze internet search activity and news article volume after this FDA warning and to evaluate the quality of websites providing patient-centered information.

METHODS

Google Trends™ was utilized to evaluate search engine trends for the term "pelvic organ prolapse" and associated terms between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2014. Google News™ was utilized to quantify the number of news articles annually under the term "pelvic organ prolapse." The search results for the term "pelvic organ prolapse" were assessed for quality using the Health On the Net Foundation (HON) certification.

RESULTS

There was a significant increase in search activity from 37.42 in 2010 to 57.75 in 2011, at the time of the FDA communication (p = 0.021). No other annual interval had a statistically significant increase in search activity. The single highest monthly search activity, given the value of 100, was August 2011, immediately following the July 2011 notification, with the next highest value being 98 in July 2011. Linear regression analysis of news articles per year since the FDA communication revealed r² = 0.88, with a coefficient of 186. Quality assessment demonstrated that 42 % of websites were HON-certified, with .gov sites providing the highest quality information.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the 2011 FDA safety communication on surgical mesh was associated with increased public and media attention, the quality of relevant health information on the internet remains of poor quality. Future quality assurance measures may be critical in enabling patients to play active roles in their own healthcare.

Safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization compared with laparoscopic sterilization: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of hysteroscopic sterilization with the "Essure" device with laparoscopic sterilization in a large, all-inclusive, state cohort.

DESIGN

Population based cohort study.

SETTINGS

Outpatient interventional setting in New York State.

PARTICIPANTS

Women undergoing interval sterilization procedure, including hysteroscopic sterilization with Essure device and laparoscopic surgery, between 2005 and 2013.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Safety events within 30 days of procedures; unintended pregnancies and reoperations within one year of procedures. Mixed model accounting for hospital clustering was used to compare 30 day and 1 year outcomes, adjusting for patient characteristics and other confounders. Time to reoperation was evaluated using frailty model for time to event analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 8048 patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization and 44,278 undergoing laparoscopic sterilization between 2005 and 2013 in New York State. There was a significant increase in the use of hysteroscopic procedures during this period, while use of laparoscopic sterilization decreased. Patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization were older than those undergoing laparoscopic sterilization and were more likely to have a history of pelvic inflammatory disease (10.3% v 7.2%, P<0.01), major abdominal surgery (9.4% v 7.9%, P<0.01), and cesarean section (23.2% v 15.4%, P<0.01). At one year after surgery, hysteroscopic sterilization was not associated with a higher risk of unintended pregnancy (odds ratio 0.84 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.12)) but was associated with a substantially increased risk of reoperation (odds ratio 10.16 (7.47 to 13.81)) compared with laparoscopic sterilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing hysteroscopic sterilization have a similar risk of unintended pregnancy but a more than 10-fold higher risk of undergoing reoperation compared with patients undergoing laparoscopic sterilization. Benefits and risks of both procedures should be discussed with patients for informed decisions making.