Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Polypropylene Mesh Predicts Mesh/Suture Exposure After Sacrocolpopexy Independent of Known Risk Factors: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

Durst, Paula J., MD; Heit, Michael H., MD, PhD

Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery: September/October 2018 - Volume 24 - Issue 5 - p 360–366
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000452
Original Articles

Objective(s) The aim of this study was to determine if ultralightweight polypropylene mesh reduced the risk of mesh/suture exposure after sacrocolpopexy compared with heavier-weighted polypropylene.

Methods Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to interpret data from 133 cases and 261 control subjects to evaluate independent predictors of mesh/suture exposure after sacrocolpopexy from 2003 to 2013.

Results Multivariate logistic regression revealed that prior surgery for incontinence (odds ratio [OR], 2.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19–6.96), porcine acellular cross-linked collagen matrix with medium-weight polypropylene mesh (OR, 4.95; 95% CI, 1.70–14.42), other polypropylene mesh (OR, 6.73; 95% CI, 1.12–40.63), nonabsorbable braided suture for vaginal mesh attachment (OR, 4.52; 95% CI, 1.53–15.37), and immediate perioperative complications (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.53–13.37) were independent risk factors for mesh/suture exposure. After multivariate analysis, ultralightweight polypropylene mesh was no longer associated with decreased rates of mesh/suture exposure after controlling for known risk factors identified during bivariate analysis (P = 0.423).

Conclusions Both mesh choice and suture selection remained independent predictors of mesh/suture exposure, with heavier meshes increasing and monofilament suture decreasing rates of mesh/suture exposure. Based on this study, surgeons may consider use of delayed-absorbable, monofilament suture over nonabsorbable braided suture for attachment of vaginal mesh to reduce the risk of mesh/suture exposure when using mesh.

From the Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.

Correspondence: Michael H. Heit, MD, PhD, 1633 N Capital Ave, Indianapolis, IN 46202. E-mail:

The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.