4.2 Article

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

期刊

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 33, 期 7, 页码 1941-1947

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04915-7

关键词

Pelvic organ prolapse; Mesh; Surgical complications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study indicates that in carefully selected patients, short-term complications are not increased when using transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据