Long-term Device Outcomes of Mesh Implants in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repairs

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the longer-term safety and reintervention outcomes of mesh implants in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repairs. METHODS:We conducted a population-based cohort study of women undergoing POP repairs in inpatient and outpatient surgical settings between 2008 and 2016 in New York State...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) 2020-03, Vol.135 (3), p.591-598
Hauptverfasser: Chughtai, Bilal, Mao, Jialin, Asfaw, Tirsit S., Heneghan, Carl, Rardin, Charles R., Sedrakyan, Art
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the longer-term safety and reintervention outcomes of mesh implants in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repairs. METHODS:We conducted a population-based cohort study of women undergoing POP repairs in inpatient and outpatient surgical settings between 2008 and 2016 in New York State. Multivariable logistic regression was used based on patient and procedural characteristics and hospital volume between mesh and nonmesh groups to obtain propensity scores for each individual. Long-term safety events and reinterventions were assessed using time-to-event analysis. RESULTS:We identified 54,194 women undergoing POP repairs (12,989 with mesh, and 41,205 without mesh). Mean age was 59.8 (±13.1) years, and median follow-up was 4.7 years (interquartile range, 2.4–6.8 years). In the propensity score-matched 12,284 pairs of women, POP repair with mesh was associated with a higher risk of reintervention when compared with POP repair without transvaginal mesh (hazard ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.27–1.54, P
ISSN:0029-7844
1873-233X
DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003689