International urogynecology journal · 2021
Short term complications in mesh augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not higher when compared with native tissue repair.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kanji Sarah, Pascali Dante, Clancy Aisling A
Аннотация
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.
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.