Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the value of posterior compartment surgery during concomitant mesh-augmented apical suspension by comparing obstructed defecatory symptoms after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with LSC with posterior repair (LSC + PR) and laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy (LSCP) procedures., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent LSC, LSC + PR, and LSCP between July 2007 and July 2016 at a tertiary referral center in Indianapolis, Ind. Our primary outcome was differential change in Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) and Colorectal-Anal Impact Questionnaire (CRAIQ-7) scores between the groups including patient-specific symptoms of splinting, straining, incomplete emptying, and pain with defecation. Our secondary outcomes were the rates of postoperative persistent, new, and resolved obstructed defecation symptoms. Anatomic outcomes were also compared between the groups as measured by change in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System points Ap, GH, and PB., Results: A total of 312 women were included in the study (47 LSC, 133 LSC + PR, and 132 LSCP), with a median follow-up time of 366 days. The majority of patients who underwent surgery had stage III pelvic organ prolapse (61%). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, including preoperative CRADI-8 and CRAIQ-7 scores. All surgical groups demonstrated improvement in CRADI-8 and CRAIQ-7 scores postoperatively (P < 0.001). However, despite differential change in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System points Ap, GH, and PB, there was no change in CRADI-8 and CRAIQ-7 scores or rates of persistent, new, and resolved symptoms of splinting to defecate, incomplete emptying, and pain with defecation between the groups. The only factor that seemed to be differentially improved by the addition of a posterior compartment repair was postoperative straining. There was a greater rate of de novo straining in the LSC group compared with LSCP (P = 0.01) (LSC + PR v LSCP, P = NS, for both)., Conclusions: We cannot recommend posterior compartment surgery as providing any patient-centered benefit beyond improved cosmesis because the addition of perineal body stabilization either before (LSCP) or posterior repair after (LSC + PR) concomitant mesh-augmented apical suspension did not differentially affect bowel symptoms compared with LSC alone.

Objective: We aimed to assess documentation completeness of the operative record for mesh implanted at the time of midurethral sling surgery and to identify modifiable predictors of documentation completeness., Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of women with stress incontinence who underwent midurethral sling placement between January 2009 and December 2011 was conducted. Data from the dictated operative note and nursing operative record were extracted to determine if the specific mesh implanted during surgery was documented. The primary outcome was the rate of documentation of mesh implanted in the physician's dictated operative note and in the nursing record. Logistic regression was used to determine if any characteristics were associated with the rate of documentation while accounting for correlation of patients from the same dictating surgeon., Results: There were 816 surgeries involving the implantation of a midurethral sling during the study period. All surgeries were performed at 6 Indiana University hospitals. Fifty-two surgeons of varying specialties and levels of training dictated the operative notes. A urogynecologist dictated 71% of the operative notes. The rate of documentation completeness for mesh implanted in the physician's note was 10%. The rate of documentation completeness for mesh implanted in the nursing operative record was 92%. Documentation of mesh implanted in the physician's note was not significantly associated with the level of training, specialty, or year of surgery., Conclusions: Documentation completeness for specific mesh implant in the physician's note is low, independent of specialty and level of training. Nursing documentation practices are more rigorous. Postmarket surveillance, currently mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, may not be feasible if only the physician's note is available or if nursing practices are inconsistent. Development of documentation guidelines for physicians would improve the feasibility of surveillance.

Both expert surgeons agree with the following: (1) Surgical mesh, whether placed laparoscopically or transvaginally, is indicated for pelvic floor reconstruction in cases involving recurrent advanced pelvic organ prolapse. (2) Procedural expertise and experience gained from performing a high volume of cases is fundamentally necessary. Knowledge of outcomes and complications from an individual surgeon's audit of cases is also needed when discussing the risks and benefits of procedures and alternatives. Yet controversy still exists on how best to teach new surgical techniques and optimal ways to efficiently track outcomes, including subjective and objective cure of prolapse as well as perioperative complications. A mesh registry will be useful in providing data needed for surgeons. Cost factors are also a consideration since laparoscopic and especially robotic surgical mesh procedures are generally more costly than transvaginal mesh kits when operative time, extra instrumentation and length of stay are included. Long-term outcomes, particularly for transvaginal mesh procedures, are lacking. In conclusion, all surgery poses risks; however, patients should be made aware of the pros and cons of various routes of surgery as well as the potential risks and benefits of using mesh. Surgeons should provide patients with honest information about their own experience implanting mesh and also their experience dealing with mesh-related complications.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of concomitant hysterectomy at the time of abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy on the risk of mesh erosion with the use of type 1 polypropylene mesh., Study Design: This was a retrospective case control study. All cases of vaginal mesh erosion (n = 31) were compared with matched control cases (n = 93) in a 3:1 ratio. Demographic data, concomitant procedures, and postoperative complications were compared between groups with the use of 2-sample Student t test and Pearson chi(2) test., Results: The odds ratio of a vaginal mesh erosion was no different for those who underwent a hysterectomy at the time of abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-2.18; P = .899) when potential confounders were similar between groups., Conclusion: Hysterectomy at the time of abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy is not a risk factor for vaginal mesh erosion with the use of type 1 polypropylene mesh.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between smoking and vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy with the use of type 1 polypropylene mesh., Study Design: All cases of mesh erosion (n = 27) that were diagnosed between October 2003 and June 2006 were identified and compared with matched control cases (n = 81). Control cases were matched for age, diabetes mellitus status, hypoestrogenic state (menopausal status, chronic steroid use, use of hormone therapy), abdominal-vaginal rectocele repair, culdoplasty, and concomitant hysterectomy. Demographic data, surgical characteristics, and postoperative complications were also compared between groups. Continuous data were compared using 2-sample Student t tests. Categoric data were compared with the use of Pearson Chi-square tests., Results: The odds of experiencing mesh erosion was significantly greater in smokers than in nonsmokers (odds ratio, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.3, 14.4; P = .010) when potential confounders were similar between groups., Conclusion: Tobacco use is a risk factor for vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy with the use of type 1 polypropylene mesh.