Reoperation rates for pelvic organ prolapse repairs with biologic and synthetic grafts in a large population-based cohort

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 2020-02, Vol.31 (2), p.291-301
• Main Authors: Sohlberg, Ericka M., Dallas, Kai B., Weeks, Brannon T., Elliott, Christopher S., Rogo-Gupta, Lisa
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological Products - therapeutic use; California; Databases, Factual; Female; Gynecology; Health risk assessment; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Longitudinal Studies; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Original Article; Pelvic organ prolapse; Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Postoperative Complications - surgery; Prosthesis Design - adverse effects; Prosthesis Design - statistics & numerical data; Recurrence; Reoperation - statistics & numerical data; Retrospective Studies; Surgery; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects; Surgical Mesh - statistics & numerical data; Synthetic Biology; Transplants - surgery; Treatment Outcome; Urology
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-019-04035-3

Introduction and hypothesis As the long-term complications of synthetic mesh become increasingly apparent, re-evaluation of alternative graft options for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repairs is critical. We sought to compare the long-term reoperation rates of biologic and synthetic grafts in POP repair. Methods Using the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database, we identified all women who underwent index inpatient POP repair with either a synthetic or biologic graft between 2005 and 2011 in the state of California. ICD-9 and CPT codes were used to identify subsequent surgeries in these patients for either recurrent POP or a graft complication. Results A total of 14,192 women underwent POP repair with a biologic (14%) or synthetic graft (86%) during the study period. Women with biologic grafts had increased rates of surgery for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (3.6% vs 2.5%, p  = 0.01), whereas women with synthetic grafts had higher rates of repeat surgery for a graft complication (3.0 vs 2.0%, p  = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the overall risk of repeat surgery between the groups (5.7% vs 5.6%, p  = 0.79). These effects persisted in multivariate modeling. Conclusions We demonstrate in a large population-based cohort that biologic grafts are associated with an increased rate of repeat surgery for POP recurrence whereas synthetic mesh is associated with an increased rate of repeat surgery for a graft complication. These competing risks result in an equivalent overall any-cause repeat surgery rate between the groups. These data suggest that neither type of graft should be excluded from use and encourage a personalized risk assessment.