向食品药品管理局报告的并发症:泌尿妇科网的横向比较。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Amanda M Artsen, Jessica C Sassani, Pamela A Moalli, Megan S Bradley
{"title":"向食品药品管理局报告的并发症:泌尿妇科网的横向比较。","authors":"Amanda M Artsen, Jessica C Sassani, Pamela A Moalli, Megan S Bradley","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The U.S. Food and Drug Administration uses the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database to evaluate the safety of urogynecologic meshes; however, reports on individual meshes have not been characterized.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study was to compare complications among available urogynecologic meshes reported to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This study is a cross-sectional analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) of urogynecologic mesh from January 2004 to March 2019, using the Reed Tech Navigator (LexisNexis), which codes MDRs. The percentage of reports containing specific complaints (not an adverse event rate) were compared with χ 2 tests with Dunn-Sidak correction. Correlations with time on market, mesh weight, stiffness, and porosity were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 34,485 reports examined included 6 transvaginal meshes, 4 sacrocolpopexy meshes, and 10 midurethral slings. Most reported events were pain, erosion, and infection. For transvaginal prolapse, less than 10% of Uphold Lite (Boston Scientific) reports contained pain or erosion versus greater than 90% of Prolift/Prolift+M (Ethicon, P < 0.001). For sacrocolpopexy mesh, greater than 90% of Gynemesh (Ethicon; Prolift in vaginal form) reports included erosion and pain versus less than 60% for Artisyn (Ethicon), Restorelle (Colpoplast), and Upsylon (Boston Scientific, P < 0.0001). For slings, Gynecare TVT Obturator had the highest proportion of erosion and pain complaints. Heavier sling meshes had more reports. When Ascend (Caldera Medical), an outlier with only 5 reports, was excluded, transvaginal mesh stiffness correlated strongly with number of reports. For transvaginal meshes, number of reports correlated with time on market (ρ = 0.8, P = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Individual meshes have different properties with different complication profiles, which should inform mesh development and use. Gynemesh MDRs included pain and erosion more frequently than others. Comprehensive registries are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"28 7","pages":"452-460"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9246837/pdf/nihms-1790505.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complications Reported to the Food and Drug Administration: A Cross-sectional Comparison of Urogynecologic Meshes.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda M Artsen, Jessica C Sassani, Pamela A Moalli, Megan S Bradley\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The U.S. Food and Drug Administration uses the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database to evaluate the safety of urogynecologic meshes; however, reports on individual meshes have not been characterized.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study was to compare complications among available urogynecologic meshes reported to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This study is a cross-sectional analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) of urogynecologic mesh from January 2004 to March 2019, using the Reed Tech Navigator (LexisNexis), which codes MDRs. The percentage of reports containing specific complaints (not an adverse event rate) were compared with χ 2 tests with Dunn-Sidak correction. Correlations with time on market, mesh weight, stiffness, and porosity were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 34,485 reports examined included 6 transvaginal meshes, 4 sacrocolpopexy meshes, and 10 midurethral slings. Most reported events were pain, erosion, and infection. For transvaginal prolapse, less than 10% of Uphold Lite (Boston Scientific) reports contained pain or erosion versus greater than 90% of Prolift/Prolift+M (Ethicon, P < 0.001). For sacrocolpopexy mesh, greater than 90% of Gynemesh (Ethicon; Prolift in vaginal form) reports included erosion and pain versus less than 60% for Artisyn (Ethicon), Restorelle (Colpoplast), and Upsylon (Boston Scientific, P < 0.0001). For slings, Gynecare TVT Obturator had the highest proportion of erosion and pain complaints. Heavier sling meshes had more reports. When Ascend (Caldera Medical), an outlier with only 5 reports, was excluded, transvaginal mesh stiffness correlated strongly with number of reports. For transvaginal meshes, number of reports correlated with time on market (ρ = 0.8, P = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Individual meshes have different properties with different complication profiles, which should inform mesh development and use. Gynemesh MDRs included pain and erosion more frequently than others. Comprehensive registries are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"28 7\",\"pages\":\"452-460\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9246837/pdf/nihms-1790505.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001193\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/4/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001193","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:美国食品和药物管理局使用制造商和用户设施设备经验数据库来评估泌尿妇科网片的安全性;然而,有关单个网片的报告并不具有特征:研究目的:比较向制造商和用户设备经验数据库报告的现有泌尿妇科网片的并发症:本研究是对2004年1月至2019年3月期间泌尿妇科网片的医疗器械报告(MDR)进行的横断面分析,使用的是对MDR进行编码的Reed Tech Navigator (LexisNexis)。通过χ 2 检验和 Dunn-Sidak 校正比较了包含特定投诉(非不良事件发生率)的报告百分比。确定了与上市时间、网片重量、硬度和孔隙率的相关性:所研究的 34,485 份报告中包括 6 份经阴道网片、4 份骶骨整形网片和 10 份尿道中段吊带。报告的大多数事件是疼痛、糜烂和感染。对于经阴道脱垂,Uphold Lite(波士顿科学公司)报告中疼痛或糜烂的比例不到 10%,而 Prolift/Prolift+M (Ethicon,P < 0.001)报告中疼痛或糜烂的比例超过 90%。在骶骨整形网片方面,90% 以上的 Gynemesh(Ethicon;阴道型 Prolift)报告中包含糜烂和疼痛,而 Artisyn(Ethicon)、Restorelle(Colpoplast)和 Upsylon(Boston Scientific)的报告中包含糜烂和疼痛的比例低于 60%,P <0.0001。就吊衣而言,Gynecare TVT Obturator 的侵蚀和疼痛投诉比例最高。较厚的吊衣网格有更多的报告。如果排除仅有 5 份报告的异常值 Ascend(Caldera Medical),经阴道网片的硬度与报告数量密切相关。对于经阴道网片,报告数量与上市时间相关(ρ = 0.8,P = 0.04):结论:不同的网片具有不同的特性,并发症情况也不尽相同,这为网片的开发和使用提供了参考。妇科网的 MDR 包括疼痛和糜烂的频率高于其他网片。需要进行全面的登记。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Complications Reported to the Food and Drug Administration: A Cross-sectional Comparison of Urogynecologic Meshes.

Complications Reported to the Food and Drug Administration: A Cross-sectional Comparison of Urogynecologic Meshes.

Importance: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration uses the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database to evaluate the safety of urogynecologic meshes; however, reports on individual meshes have not been characterized.

Objective: The aim of the study was to compare complications among available urogynecologic meshes reported to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database.

Study design: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) of urogynecologic mesh from January 2004 to March 2019, using the Reed Tech Navigator (LexisNexis), which codes MDRs. The percentage of reports containing specific complaints (not an adverse event rate) were compared with χ 2 tests with Dunn-Sidak correction. Correlations with time on market, mesh weight, stiffness, and porosity were determined.

Results: The 34,485 reports examined included 6 transvaginal meshes, 4 sacrocolpopexy meshes, and 10 midurethral slings. Most reported events were pain, erosion, and infection. For transvaginal prolapse, less than 10% of Uphold Lite (Boston Scientific) reports contained pain or erosion versus greater than 90% of Prolift/Prolift+M (Ethicon, P < 0.001). For sacrocolpopexy mesh, greater than 90% of Gynemesh (Ethicon; Prolift in vaginal form) reports included erosion and pain versus less than 60% for Artisyn (Ethicon), Restorelle (Colpoplast), and Upsylon (Boston Scientific, P < 0.0001). For slings, Gynecare TVT Obturator had the highest proportion of erosion and pain complaints. Heavier sling meshes had more reports. When Ascend (Caldera Medical), an outlier with only 5 reports, was excluded, transvaginal mesh stiffness correlated strongly with number of reports. For transvaginal meshes, number of reports correlated with time on market (ρ = 0.8, P = 0.04).

Conclusions: Individual meshes have different properties with different complication profiles, which should inform mesh development and use. Gynemesh MDRs included pain and erosion more frequently than others. Comprehensive registries are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
228
期刊介绍: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信