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

Muhammad F. Aslam, Mary Denman, S(Renee) Edwards, William (Tom) Gregory

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-5
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Dec 13 2016

Fingerprint

Pelvic Floor
Retrospective Studies
Survival Analysis
Proportional Hazards Models

Keywords

  • abdominal mesh
  • Mesh erosion
  • mesh exposure
  • time to mesh exposure
  • vaginal mesh

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

@article{7730355c4fa74a61aca8feb146725e1e,
title = "Latency to vaginal mesh exposure with mesh placed abdominally versus vaginally in pelvic floor surgery: A retrospective comparative study*",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "abdominal mesh, Mesh erosion, mesh exposure, time to mesh exposure, vaginal mesh",
author = "Aslam, {Muhammad F.} and Mary Denman and S(Renee) Edwards and Gregory, {William (Tom)}",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1080/01443615.2016.1245716",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--5",
journal = "Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology",
issn = "0144-3615",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Latency to vaginal mesh exposure with mesh placed abdominally versus vaginally in pelvic floor surgery

T2 - A retrospective comparative study*

AU - Aslam, Muhammad F.

AU - Denman, Mary

AU - Edwards, S(Renee)

AU - Gregory, William (Tom)

PY - 2016/12/13

Y1 - 2016/12/13

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - abdominal mesh

KW - Mesh erosion

KW - mesh exposure

KW - time to mesh exposure

KW - vaginal mesh

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006147338&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006147338&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/01443615.2016.1245716

DO - 10.1080/01443615.2016.1245716

M3 - Article

C2 - 27966387

AN - SCOPUS:85006147338

SP - 1

EP - 5

JO - Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

JF - Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SN - 0144-3615

ER -