Techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and the comparison of complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience
Objectives To investigate techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and compare complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience with transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery. Methods We carried out an anonymous questionnaire survey for surgeons attending a national transvaginal m...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of urology 2020-11, Vol.27 (11), p.996-1000 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1000 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 996 |
| container_title | International journal of urology |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Kato, Kumiko Gotoh, Momokazu Takahashi, Satoru Kusanishi, Hiroshi Takeyama, Masami Koyama, Masayasu |
| description | Objectives
To investigate techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and compare complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience with transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery.
Methods
We carried out an anonymous questionnaire survey for surgeons attending a national transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery meeting in 2010. The surgeons were asked to state their specialty, practice patterns, transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques and the number of transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures carried out as an operator including the complications that occurred.
Results
A total of 118 surgeons (59% of the attendees) responded to the questionnaire. The mean age was 44.0 ± 9.1 years, 54 (46%) were gynecologists and 64 (54%) were urologists. All urologists and 78% of gynecologists carried out anti‐incontinence surgery (midurethral sling), whereas more gynecologists (93%) carried out native tissue repair than urologists (73%). Most of both specialties (each 98%) avoided prophylactic anti‐incontinence surgery during prolapse surgery. Concomitant hysterectomy during transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery was generally avoided. Surgeons reached a consensus regarding the critical transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques: hydrodissection (98%) and the full‐thickness dissection (the “Lychee layer”; 69%). A total of 11 935 Prolift‐type transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures were carried out and the following complications were reported: bladder injury (1.6%), rectal injury (0.3%), ureteral injury (0.1%), blood transfusion (0.2%), vaginal exposure (2.8%) and recurrence requiring reoperation (1.1%). Although complications did not differ between specialty, bladder injury, transfusion and vaginal exposure were less prevalent with experienced surgeons (≥50 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery cases).
Conclusions
Over 10 000 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery had been carried out in Japan with a relatively low complication rate until 2010. This survey shows that surgeons’ experience could lead to a decrease in the amount of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery complications. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/iju.14343 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2432860379</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2432860379</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4433-c57d9119c861ef053fa0370b9b54f76ee994a7c1d5e38e87e1947393885ddafd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9O3DAQh60KVLa0B16gssSFSg34X9bxsUKlBSH1Audo1pmwXiVOaidtc-PeJ-D1-iR1COWA1LmMRvrmk2Z-hBxxdspTnbndeMqVVPIVWXGlRCaYEntkxQw3WcG1OCBvYtwxxqXgxWtyIIXWa5mbFfl9g3br3fcRI-1qOgTw8QfcOQ8NbTFuaR-6BvqINI7hDsNEnadX0IP_SMFXdNgitV3bQ3Cx87NinhpnYXBpDjAk8WZatjsf_9w_0NijddAM06MBf_UYHHqLb8l-DU3Ed0_9kNxefL45_5pdf_tyef7pOrNKSZnZXFeGc2OLNcea5bIGJjXbmE2uar1GNEaBtrzKURZYaORGaWlkUeRVBXUlD8nJ4k23zYcPZeuixaYBj90YS6GkKNbJaRJ6_ALddWNIz5mp3GgleM4S9WGhbOhiDFiXfXAthKnkrJwTKlNC5WNCiX3_ZBw3LVbP5L9IEnC2AD9dg9P_TeXl1e2i_Av3gZ1E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2459742150</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and the comparison of complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Kato, Kumiko ; Gotoh, Momokazu ; Takahashi, Satoru ; Kusanishi, Hiroshi ; Takeyama, Masami ; Koyama, Masayasu</creator><creatorcontrib>Kato, Kumiko ; Gotoh, Momokazu ; Takahashi, Satoru ; Kusanishi, Hiroshi ; Takeyama, Masami ; Koyama, Masayasu</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To investigate techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and compare complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience with transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery.
Methods
We carried out an anonymous questionnaire survey for surgeons attending a national transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery meeting in 2010. The surgeons were asked to state their specialty, practice patterns, transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques and the number of transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures carried out as an operator including the complications that occurred.
Results
A total of 118 surgeons (59% of the attendees) responded to the questionnaire. The mean age was 44.0 ± 9.1 years, 54 (46%) were gynecologists and 64 (54%) were urologists. All urologists and 78% of gynecologists carried out anti‐incontinence surgery (midurethral sling), whereas more gynecologists (93%) carried out native tissue repair than urologists (73%). Most of both specialties (each 98%) avoided prophylactic anti‐incontinence surgery during prolapse surgery. Concomitant hysterectomy during transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery was generally avoided. Surgeons reached a consensus regarding the critical transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques: hydrodissection (98%) and the full‐thickness dissection (the “Lychee layer”; 69%). A total of 11 935 Prolift‐type transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures were carried out and the following complications were reported: bladder injury (1.6%), rectal injury (0.3%), ureteral injury (0.1%), blood transfusion (0.2%), vaginal exposure (2.8%) and recurrence requiring reoperation (1.1%). Although complications did not differ between specialty, bladder injury, transfusion and vaginal exposure were less prevalent with experienced surgeons (≥50 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery cases).
Conclusions
Over 10 000 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery had been carried out in Japan with a relatively low complication rate until 2010. This survey shows that surgeons’ experience could lead to a decrease in the amount of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery complications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0919-8172</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1442-2042</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1442-2042</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/iju.14343</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32776359</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Australia: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Blood transfusion ; Female ; Gynecology ; Humans ; Hysterectomy ; Japan - epidemiology ; mesh complication ; Middle Aged ; midurethral sling ; pelvic organ prolapse ; Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery ; Questionnaires ; Rectum ; Suburethral Slings - adverse effects ; Surgeons ; Surgery ; surgical education ; Surgical mesh ; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects ; transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery ; Urology ; Vagina</subject><ispartof>International journal of urology, 2020-11, Vol.27 (11), p.996-1000</ispartof><rights>2020 The Japanese Urological Association</rights><rights>2020 The Japanese Urological Association.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4433-c57d9119c861ef053fa0370b9b54f76ee994a7c1d5e38e87e1947393885ddafd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4433-c57d9119c861ef053fa0370b9b54f76ee994a7c1d5e38e87e1947393885ddafd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fiju.14343$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fiju.14343$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32776359$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kato, Kumiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gotoh, Momokazu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takahashi, Satoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kusanishi, Hiroshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takeyama, Masami</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koyama, Masayasu</creatorcontrib><title>Techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and the comparison of complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience</title><title>International journal of urology</title><addtitle>Int J Urol</addtitle><description>Objectives
To investigate techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and compare complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience with transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery.
Methods
We carried out an anonymous questionnaire survey for surgeons attending a national transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery meeting in 2010. The surgeons were asked to state their specialty, practice patterns, transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques and the number of transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures carried out as an operator including the complications that occurred.
Results
A total of 118 surgeons (59% of the attendees) responded to the questionnaire. The mean age was 44.0 ± 9.1 years, 54 (46%) were gynecologists and 64 (54%) were urologists. All urologists and 78% of gynecologists carried out anti‐incontinence surgery (midurethral sling), whereas more gynecologists (93%) carried out native tissue repair than urologists (73%). Most of both specialties (each 98%) avoided prophylactic anti‐incontinence surgery during prolapse surgery. Concomitant hysterectomy during transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery was generally avoided. Surgeons reached a consensus regarding the critical transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques: hydrodissection (98%) and the full‐thickness dissection (the “Lychee layer”; 69%). A total of 11 935 Prolift‐type transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures were carried out and the following complications were reported: bladder injury (1.6%), rectal injury (0.3%), ureteral injury (0.1%), blood transfusion (0.2%), vaginal exposure (2.8%) and recurrence requiring reoperation (1.1%). Although complications did not differ between specialty, bladder injury, transfusion and vaginal exposure were less prevalent with experienced surgeons (≥50 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery cases).
Conclusions
Over 10 000 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery had been carried out in Japan with a relatively low complication rate until 2010. This survey shows that surgeons’ experience could lead to a decrease in the amount of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery complications.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Blood transfusion</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hysterectomy</subject><subject>Japan - epidemiology</subject><subject>mesh complication</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>midurethral sling</subject><subject>pelvic organ prolapse</subject><subject>Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Rectum</subject><subject>Suburethral Slings - adverse effects</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>surgical education</subject><subject>Surgical mesh</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</subject><subject>transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery</subject><subject>Urology</subject><subject>Vagina</subject><issn>0919-8172</issn><issn>1442-2042</issn><issn>1442-2042</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc9O3DAQh60KVLa0B16gssSFSg34X9bxsUKlBSH1Audo1pmwXiVOaidtc-PeJ-D1-iR1COWA1LmMRvrmk2Z-hBxxdspTnbndeMqVVPIVWXGlRCaYEntkxQw3WcG1OCBvYtwxxqXgxWtyIIXWa5mbFfl9g3br3fcRI-1qOgTw8QfcOQ8NbTFuaR-6BvqINI7hDsNEnadX0IP_SMFXdNgitV3bQ3Cx87NinhpnYXBpDjAk8WZatjsf_9w_0NijddAM06MBf_UYHHqLb8l-DU3Ed0_9kNxefL45_5pdf_tyef7pOrNKSZnZXFeGc2OLNcea5bIGJjXbmE2uar1GNEaBtrzKURZYaORGaWlkUeRVBXUlD8nJ4k23zYcPZeuixaYBj90YS6GkKNbJaRJ6_ALddWNIz5mp3GgleM4S9WGhbOhiDFiXfXAthKnkrJwTKlNC5WNCiX3_ZBw3LVbP5L9IEnC2AD9dg9P_TeXl1e2i_Av3gZ1E</recordid><startdate>202011</startdate><enddate>202011</enddate><creator>Kato, Kumiko</creator><creator>Gotoh, Momokazu</creator><creator>Takahashi, Satoru</creator><creator>Kusanishi, Hiroshi</creator><creator>Takeyama, Masami</creator><creator>Koyama, Masayasu</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202011</creationdate><title>Techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and the comparison of complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience</title><author>Kato, Kumiko ; Gotoh, Momokazu ; Takahashi, Satoru ; Kusanishi, Hiroshi ; Takeyama, Masami ; Koyama, Masayasu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4433-c57d9119c861ef053fa0370b9b54f76ee994a7c1d5e38e87e1947393885ddafd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Blood transfusion</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hysterectomy</topic><topic>Japan - epidemiology</topic><topic>mesh complication</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>midurethral sling</topic><topic>pelvic organ prolapse</topic><topic>Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Rectum</topic><topic>Suburethral Slings - adverse effects</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>surgical education</topic><topic>Surgical mesh</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</topic><topic>transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery</topic><topic>Urology</topic><topic>Vagina</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kato, Kumiko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gotoh, Momokazu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takahashi, Satoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kusanishi, Hiroshi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Takeyama, Masami</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koyama, Masayasu</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kato, Kumiko</au><au>Gotoh, Momokazu</au><au>Takahashi, Satoru</au><au>Kusanishi, Hiroshi</au><au>Takeyama, Masami</au><au>Koyama, Masayasu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and the comparison of complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience</atitle><jtitle>International journal of urology</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Urol</addtitle><date>2020-11</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>996</spage><epage>1000</epage><pages>996-1000</pages><issn>0919-8172</issn><issn>1442-2042</issn><eissn>1442-2042</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To investigate techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and compare complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience with transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery.
Methods
We carried out an anonymous questionnaire survey for surgeons attending a national transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery meeting in 2010. The surgeons were asked to state their specialty, practice patterns, transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques and the number of transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures carried out as an operator including the complications that occurred.
Results
A total of 118 surgeons (59% of the attendees) responded to the questionnaire. The mean age was 44.0 ± 9.1 years, 54 (46%) were gynecologists and 64 (54%) were urologists. All urologists and 78% of gynecologists carried out anti‐incontinence surgery (midurethral sling), whereas more gynecologists (93%) carried out native tissue repair than urologists (73%). Most of both specialties (each 98%) avoided prophylactic anti‐incontinence surgery during prolapse surgery. Concomitant hysterectomy during transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery was generally avoided. Surgeons reached a consensus regarding the critical transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery techniques: hydrodissection (98%) and the full‐thickness dissection (the “Lychee layer”; 69%). A total of 11 935 Prolift‐type transvaginal mesh prolapse procedures were carried out and the following complications were reported: bladder injury (1.6%), rectal injury (0.3%), ureteral injury (0.1%), blood transfusion (0.2%), vaginal exposure (2.8%) and recurrence requiring reoperation (1.1%). Although complications did not differ between specialty, bladder injury, transfusion and vaginal exposure were less prevalent with experienced surgeons (≥50 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery cases).
Conclusions
Over 10 000 transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery had been carried out in Japan with a relatively low complication rate until 2010. This survey shows that surgeons’ experience could lead to a decrease in the amount of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery complications.</abstract><cop>Australia</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>32776359</pmid><doi>10.1111/iju.14343</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0919-8172 |
| ispartof | International journal of urology, 2020-11, Vol.27 (11), p.996-1000 |
| issn | 0919-8172 1442-2042 1442-2042 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2432860379 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Adult Blood transfusion Female Gynecology Humans Hysterectomy Japan - epidemiology mesh complication Middle Aged midurethral sling pelvic organ prolapse Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery Questionnaires Rectum Suburethral Slings - adverse effects Surgeons Surgery surgical education Surgical mesh Surgical Mesh - adverse effects transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery Urology Vagina |
| title | Techniques of transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in Japan, and the comparison of complication rates by surgeons’ specialty and experience |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T22%3A10%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Techniques%20of%20transvaginal%20mesh%20prolapse%20surgery%20in%20Japan,%20and%20the%20comparison%20of%20complication%20rates%20by%20surgeons%E2%80%99%20specialty%20and%20experience&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20urology&rft.au=Kato,%20Kumiko&rft.date=2020-11&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=996&rft.epage=1000&rft.pages=996-1000&rft.issn=0919-8172&rft.eissn=1442-2042&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/iju.14343&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2432860379%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2459742150&rft_id=info:pmid/32776359&rfr_iscdi=true |