Tension-free vaginal mesh procedure for pelvic organ prolapse: A single-center experience of 310 cases with 1-year follow up

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoru Takahashi ◽  
Daisuke Obinata ◽  
Takahiro Sakuma ◽  
Yusuke Nagane ◽  
Katsuhiko Sato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Vaginal Mesh ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Tension Free ◽  
Single Center Experience

Long-term observation on postoperative recurrence and complications of transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junfang Yang ◽  
Kun Zhang ◽  
Jinsong Han ◽  
Yiting Wang ◽  
Ying Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Protective Factor ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Vaginal Mesh ◽  
Transvaginal Mesh ◽  
Mesh Exposure ◽  
Mesh Surgery ◽  
Post Menopause

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the risk factors for subjective recurrence and complications of patients who underwent transvaginal synthetic mesh surgery. Design：This retrospective cohort study included patients who received transvaginal mesh (TVM) surgery between January 2005 and June 2019. Methods: The information of patients was collected, including basic characteristics, subjective recurrence, and mesh-related complications. The clinical characteristics of patients with and without subjective recurrence were compared. The sexual activities of patients before and after the operation were recorded. SPSS 20.0 was used for the statistical analysis. Results: A total of 257 patients were included. Among them, 62 (24.1%) patients were lost to follow-up. The median follow-up time was 80 months (12 months, 170 months). Finally, 195 patients were followed up, 11 (5.6%) patients had a subjective recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse, and 26 (13.3%) patients had mesh-related complications (11 patients with de novo pain and 15 patients with mesh exposure). We found significant differences in age (68.9±5.1 vs. 63.4±5.8 years old), years of post-menopause (17.5±6.3 vs. 13.3±6.9 years), previous hysterectomy (27.3% vs. 6.0%), and concomitant hysterectomy (45.5% vs. 81.0%) between patients with and without subjective recurrence (P<0.05). The mesh exposure proportion of patients with total vaginal mesh (47.6%) was significantly higher than that with anterior vaginal mesh (2.9%) (P<0.05). Furthermore, 6.7% of sexually active patients reported do novo dyspareunia. Limitation: The investigators could only record the subjective recurrence of patients, thus there is a lack of objective recurrence data. Conclusion: Age, years of post-menopause and previous hysterectomy are risk factors for subjective recurrence of transvaginal mesh surgery; however，concomitant hysterectomy is a protective factor. Mesh exposure is the most common complication, especially for total vaginal mesh repair surgery.

379 Long-term efficacy and safety of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) treatment with tension-free vaginal mesh

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. e379-e379a
Author(s):  
Cabello M.A. Rodriguez ◽  
García I. Laso ◽  
Andrada A. Orosa ◽  
Calvo D. Carracedo ◽  
J.M. Gómez De Vicente ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Vaginal Mesh ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Tension Free ◽  
Term Efficacy

scholarly journals Association between surgical volumes and real-world healthcare cost when using a mesh capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse: A 5-years comparison between single- versus multicenter use

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Morcos ◽  
Christian Falconer ◽  
Emilie Toresson Grip ◽  
Kirk Geale ◽  
Katarina Hellgren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Surgical Volume ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Operation Analysis ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Mean Cost

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis The aim of this study was to evaluate whether high surgical volume at a single center was associated with lower healthcare costs compared to lower surgical volume in a multicenter setting. Methods All patients had symptomatic and anatomical apical prolapse (POP-Q ≥ stage II) with or without cystocele and were operated on by a standard surgical procedure using the Uphold mesh. Data on time of resource use in terms of surgery time, hospital stay and re-interventions across 5 years were compared between the single center (97 patients) and multicenter (173 patients, at 24 clinics). Unit costs for surgical time, inpatient and outpatient visits were extracted from the single-center hospital’s operation analysis program and prime production cost. Total costs were estimated for primary surgery and during 5-year follow-up. Results Costs for primary surgery were comparable between the single and the multicenter ($13,561 ± 2688 and $13,867 ± 1177, P = 0.29). Follow-up costs 5 years after primary surgery were 2.8 times higher at the multicenter than single center ($3262 vs. $1149, P < 0.001). Mean cost per patient over 5 years was significantly lower at the single than multicenter [$14,710 (CI: 14,168–15,252) vs. $17,128 (CI: 16,952–17,305), P < 0.001)]. Conclusions Using a mesh kit for apical pelvic organ prolapse in a high surgical volume center was associated with reduced healthcare costs compared with a lower volume multiple-site setting. The cost reduction at the high surgical volume center increased over time because of lower surgical and medical re-intervention rates for postoperative complications and recurrence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document