Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study is to identify risk factors for mesh erosion in women undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC). We hypothesize that erosion is higher in subjects undergoing concomitant hysterectomy. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent MISC between November 2004 and January 2009. Demographics, operative techniques, and outcomes were abstracted from medical records. Multivariable regression identified odds of erosion. RESULTS: Of 188 MISC procedures 19(10%) had erosions. Erosion was higher in those with total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH) compared to both post-hysterectomy (23% vs. 5%, p = 0.003) and supracervical hysterectomy (SCH) (23% vs. 5%, p = 0.109) groups. In multivariable regression, the odds of erosion for TVH was 5.67 (95% CI: 1.88-17.10) compared to post-hysterectomy. Smoking, the use of collagen-coated mesh, transvaginal dissection, and mesh attachment transvaginally were no longer significant in the multivariable regression model. CONCLUSION: Based on this study, surgeons should consider supracervical hysterectomy over total vaginal hysterectomy as the procedure of choice in association with MISC unless removal of the cervix is otherwise indicated.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 172
- Authors
- Tan-Kim, J., Menefee, S. A., Luber, K. M., Nager, C. W., & Lukacz, E. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Kaiser Permanente (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lukacz, Emily S.
- Venue
- International Urogynecology Journal
- Published
- 2010-09-15
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 205-212
- ISSN
- 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-3023
- PMC
- PMC3025104
- OpenAlex
- W2061828743
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 8.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Intuitive Surgical
- University of California, San Diego
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
- Keywords
- mesh erosion, sacrocolpopexy, total vaginal hysterectomy, subtotal hysterectomy, risk factors, pelvic organ prolapse, smoking
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Female, Foreign Bodies, Humans, Hysterectomy, Vaginal, Middle Aged, Laparoscopy, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Surgical Mesh, Vagina, Prevalence, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
