U.S. Food and Drug Administration Statements About Transvaginal Mesh and Changes in Apical Prolapse Surgery.

OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication and the reclassification of transvaginal mesh to a class III device on national trends in the treatment of apical prolapse. METHODS A retrospective cohort study of surgical cases from 2008 to 2017 from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was conducted. Patients were included if they underwent apical prolapse repair, as identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. RESULTS We identified 36,523 eligible surgical cases. There were no clinically meaningful differences in postoperative complications when stratified by surgical approach. The use of transvaginal mesh decreased from 35.0% to 11.0% from 2008 to 2017. In the year immediately after the first FDA safety communication in 2011, there was a decrease in the proportion of apical procedures using transvaginal mesh of 4.4% per quarter (P<.001), and the proportion of intraperitoneal, extraperitoneal, and abdominal colpopexy all increased. The greatest increase was seen for abdominal colpopexy procedures, which rose by 2.6% per quarter (P<.001). In the year after the FDA reclassification of transvaginal mesh in 2016, there was no significant change in the proportion of apical procedures using transvaginal mesh (P=.56). CONCLUSION The first FDA safety communication in 2011 was associated with a significant decline in the use of transvaginal mesh and a concurrent rise in abdominal colpopexy procedures using transabdominal mesh. We speculate that the 2019 FDA ban of transvaginal mesh will result in an even more substantial shift toward abdominal colpopexy procedures.

[1]  T. Bazi,et al.  Variability in practice patterns in stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: results of an IUGA survey , 2017, International Urogynecology Journal.

[2]  S. Botros,et al.  Transvaginal mesh: a historical review and update of the current state of affairs in the United States , 2017, International Urogynecology Journal.

[3]  G. Ghoniem,et al.  Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery practice patterns: IUGA member survey , 2015, International Urogynecology Journal.

[4]  C. Nager,et al.  Position Statement on Mesh Midurethral Slings for Stress Urinary Incontinence , 2014, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

[5]  E. Lukacz,et al.  Impact of the 2011 FDA Transvaginal Mesh Safety Update on AUGS Members’ Use of Synthetic Mesh and Biologic Grafts in Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery , 2013, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

[6]  C. Ko,et al.  Quality improvement in surgery: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program approach. , 2010, Advances in surgery.

[7]  David R Flum,et al.  Blueprint for a new American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[8]  T. Kuehl,et al.  A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. , 2000, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  G. Nicita A new operation for genitourinary prolapse. , 1998, The Journal of urology.

[10]  J. Colling,et al.  Epidemiology of Surgically Managed Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence , 1997, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  T. Julian The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe, recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  G. Ghoniem,et al.  Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Management Practice Patterns: A Survey of Members of the International Urogynecological Association , 2002, International Urogynecology Journal.

[13]  J. A. Cabrera,et al.  Sacrospinous ligament fixation. , 1990, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.