Patient recall 6 weeks after surgical consent for midurethral sling using mesh.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to determine patient recall of specific surgical risks and benefits discussed during consent for midurethral sling (MUS) surgery immediately after consent and at 6 weeks follow-up. Specifically we sought to determine whether or not women recalled specific risks related to the placement of mesh. METHODS: Surgeons consented patients for MUS in their usual fashion during audio recorded consent sessions. After consent and again at 6 weeks postoperatively, women completed a checklist of risks, benefits, alternatives, and general procedural items covered during consent. In addition, women completed the Decision Regret Scale for Pelvic Floor Disorders (DRS-PFD). Audio files were used to verify specific risks, benefits, alternatives, and procedural items discussed at consent. Recall of specific risks, benefits, and alternatives were correlated with DRS-PFD scores. RESULTS: Sixty-three women completed checklists immediately post consent and at 6 weeks postoperatively. Six-week recall of benefits, alternatives, and description of the operation did not change. Surgical risk recall as measured by the patient checklist deteriorated from 92 % immediately post consent to 72 % at 6 weeks postoperatively (p < .001). Recall of the risk for mesh erosion declined from 91 to 64 % (p < .001). Recall that mesh was placed during the MUS procedure declined from 98 to 84 % (p = .01). DRS-PFD scores were correlated with poorer surgical risk recall and surgical complications (r = .31, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Recall of MUS surgery risks deteriorated over time. Specifically, women forgot that mesh was placed or might erode. Further investigations into methods and measures of adequate consent that promote recall of long-term surgical risks are needed.

Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs in women with apical prolapse. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 4, 2012. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: For anatomic and functional analyses, we included studies comparing mesh sacrocolpopexy to native tissue vaginal repairs with at least 6 months follow-up. The primary outcome was anatomic "success" after surgery. Secondary outcomes were reoperation and symptom outcomes. We included large case series and comparative studies with shorter follow-up to increase power for adverse event analyses. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Evidence quality was assessed with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Meta-analyses were performed when at least three studies reported the same outcome. We included 13 comparative studies for anatomic success, reoperation, and symptom outcomes. Moderate-quality evidence supports improved anatomic outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy; very low-quality evidence shows no differences in reoperation between sacrocolpopexy and native tissue vaginal repairs. Evidence was insufficient regarding which procedures result in improved bladder or bowel symptoms. Low-quality evidence showed no differences in postoperative sexual function. Adverse event data were compiled and meta-analyzed from 79 studies. When including larger noncomparative studies, ileus or small bowel obstruction (2.7% compared with 0.2%, P<.01), mesh or suture complications (4.2% compared with 0.4%, P<.01), and thromboembolic phenomena (0.6% compared with 0.1%, P=.03) were more common after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs. CONCLUSION: When anatomic durability is a priority, we suggest that mesh sacrocolpopexy may be the preferred surgical option. When minimizing adverse events or reoperation is the priority, there is no strong evidence supporting one approach over the other.