Advertisement

Interrater reliability of the International Continence Society and International Urogynecological Association (ICS/IUGA) classification system for mesh-related complications

Published:March 12, 2012DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.004

      Objective

      We sought to assess interrater reliability of the International Continence Society (ICS)/International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) classification system of vaginal mesh-related complications and compare this with several other available complication classification systems.

      Study Design

      This was a retrospective analysis of mesh-related complications in patients presenting after pelvic organ prolapse or incontinence surgery. The complications were classified by 2 independent reviewers using the ICS/IUGA classification system as well as 3 other available classification systems. Interrater reliability was assessed using percent agreement and the weighted κ statistic.

      Results

      The ICS/IUGA mesh complication classification system was found to have poor interrater reliability (κ = 0.15-0.78). The other systems yielded a κ that ranged from 0.18-0.60, but were too general or could only be applied to 68% of the complications.

      Conclusion

      The complexity of the ICS/IUGA mesh complication system, the large number of categories, and lack of clarity likely contribute to its poor interrater reliability.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Olsen A.L.
        • Smith V.J.
        • Bergstrom J.O.
        • Colling J.C.
        • Clark A.L.
        Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89: 501-506
        • Mistrangelo E.
        • Mancuso S.
        • Nadalini C.
        • Lijoi D.
        • Costantini S.
        Rising use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery: a review of the risk of vaginal erosion.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007; 14: 564-569
        • Hiltunen R.
        • Nieminen K.
        • Takala T.
        • et al.
        Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 455-462
        • Nguyen J.N.
        • Burchette R.J.
        Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 891-898
        • Diwadkar G.B.
        • Barber M.D.
        • Feiner B.
        • Maher C.
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 367-373
        • US Food and Drug Administration
        FDA safety communication: update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse.
        (Accessed July 13, 2011)
        • Ridgeway B.
        • Walters M.D.
        • Paraiso M.F.
        • et al.
        Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 703.e1-703.e7
        • Haylen B.T.
        • Freeman R.M.
        • Swift S.E.
        • et al.
        An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2011; 30: 2-12
        • Jacquetin B.
        • Cosson M.
        Complications of vaginal mesh: our experience.
        Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009; 20: 893-896
        • Dindo D.
        • Demartines N.
        • Clavien P.A.
        Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.
        Ann Surg. 2004; 240: 205-213
        • Strasberg S.M.
        • Linehan D.C.
        • Hawkins W.G.
        The Accordion severity grading system of surgical complications.
        Ann Surg. 2009; 250: 177-186
        • Feiner B.
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Maher C.
        Efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh kits in the treatment of prolapse of the vaginal apex: a systematic review.
        BJOG. 2009; 116: 15-24
        • Deffieux X.
        • de Tayrac R.
        • Huel C.
        • et al.
        Vaginal mesh erosion after transvaginal repair of cystocele using Gynemesh or Gynemesh-Soft in 138 women: a comparative study.
        Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007; 18: 73-79
        • Iglesia C.B.
        • Sokol A.I.
        • Sokol E.R.
        • et al.
        Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 293-303
        • Abed H.
        • Rahn D.D.
        • Lowenstein L.
        • Balk E.M.
        • Clemons J.L.
        • Rogers R.G.
        Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review; for the Systematic Review Group of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.
        Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2011; 22: 789-798
        • Dietz H.P.
        • Erdmann M.
        • Shek K.L.
        Mesh contraction: myth or reality?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 173.e1-173.e4

      Linked Article