Efficacy and patient satisfaction of pelvic organ prolapse reduction using transvaginal mesh: A Canadian perspective
Introduction: Due to U.S Food and Drud Administration warnings and class-action lawsuits, the use of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse surgery is controversial. We report data from two Canadian centres, focusing on recurrence and reoperation rates, complication rates, and patient satisfaction.
Methods: A retrospective medical chart review was performed. Patients were also invited to a long-term followup clinic for a complete questionnaire and gynecological exam. Patients unable to present to clinic for followup had the option to answer the questionnaire via telephone.
Results: A total of 334 patients were operated between 2000 and 2013. Median followup was 38 months for questionnaire and 36 months for physical exam. Thirty-seven patients (11.1%) required repeat operation, including 17 for recurrent prolapse and 10 for mesh exposure; 98.8% of patients reported feeling subjectively improved by their prolapse surgery.
Conclusions: Midterm results are satisfactory and patient subjective satisfaction is high following transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse.
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.