Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Vaginal native tissue repair versus transvaginal mesh repair for apical prolapse: how utilizing different methods of analysis affects the estimated trade-off between reoperation for mesh exposure/erosion and reoperation for recurrent prolapse.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Dieter, AA; Willis-Gray, MG; Weidner, AC; Visco, AG; Myers, ER
Published in: Int Urogynecol J
May 2015

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Informed decision-making about optimal surgical repair of apical prolapse with vaginal native tissue (NT) versus transvaginal mesh (TVM) requires understanding the balance between the potential "harm" of mesh-related complications and the potential "benefit" of reducing prolapse recurrence. Synthesis of data from observational studies is required and the current literature shows that the average follow-up for NT repair is significantly longer than for TVM repair. We examined this harm/benefit balance. We hypothesized that using different methods of analysis to incorporate follow-up time would affect the balance of outcomes. METHODS: We used a Markov state transition model to estimate the cumulative 24-month probabilities of reoperation for mesh exposure/erosion or for recurrent prolapse after either NT or TVM repair. We used four different analytic approaches to estimate probability distributions ranging from simple pooled proportions to a random effects meta-analysis using study-specific events per patient-time. RESULTS: As variability in follow-up time was accounted for better, the balance of outcomes became more uncertain. For TVM repair, the incremental ratio of number of operations for mesh exposure/erosion per single reoperation for recurrent prolapse prevented increased progressively from 1.4 to over 100 with more rigorous analysis methods. The most rigorous analysis showed a 70% probability that TVM would result in more operations for recurrent prolapse repair than NT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the best available evidence, there is considerable uncertainty about the harm/benefit trade-off between NT and TVM for apical prolapse repair. Future studies should incorporate time-to-event analyses, with greater standardization of reporting, in order to better inform decision-making.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Int Urogynecol J

DOI

EISSN

1433-3023

Publication Date

May 2015

Volume

26

Issue

5

Start / End Page

721 / 727

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Vagina
  • Uncertainty
  • Time Factors
  • Surgical Mesh
  • Risk Assessment
  • Reoperation
  • Recurrence
  • Postoperative Complications
  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse
  • Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Dieter, A. A., Willis-Gray, M. G., Weidner, A. C., Visco, A. G., & Myers, E. R. (2015). Vaginal native tissue repair versus transvaginal mesh repair for apical prolapse: how utilizing different methods of analysis affects the estimated trade-off between reoperation for mesh exposure/erosion and reoperation for recurrent prolapse. Int Urogynecol J, 26(5), 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2578-4
Dieter, Alexis A., Marcella G. Willis-Gray, Alison C. Weidner, Anthony G. Visco, and Evan R. Myers. “Vaginal native tissue repair versus transvaginal mesh repair for apical prolapse: how utilizing different methods of analysis affects the estimated trade-off between reoperation for mesh exposure/erosion and reoperation for recurrent prolapse.Int Urogynecol J 26, no. 5 (May 2015): 721–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2578-4.
Journal cover image

Published In

Int Urogynecol J

DOI

EISSN

1433-3023

Publication Date

May 2015

Volume

26

Issue

5

Start / End Page

721 / 727

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • Vagina
  • Uncertainty
  • Time Factors
  • Surgical Mesh
  • Risk Assessment
  • Reoperation
  • Recurrence
  • Postoperative Complications
  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse
  • Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine