Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Interobserver variability when employing the IUGA/ICS classification system for complications related to prostheses and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To unify and organize reporting, an International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) expert consortium published terminology guidelines with a classification system for complications related to implants used in female pelvic surgery. We hypothesize that the complexity of the codification system may be a hindrance to precision, especially with decreasing levels of postgraduate expertise.

Methods

Residents, fellows, and attending physicians were asked to code seven test cases taken from published literature. Category, timing, and site components of the classification system were assessed independently and according to the level of training. Interobserver reliability was calculated as percent agreement and Fleiss’ kappa statistic.

Results

A total of 24 participants (6 attending physicians, 3 fellows, and 15 residents) were tested. The percent agreement showed significant variation when classified by level of training. In all categories, attending physicians had the greatest percentage agreement and largest kappa. The most agreement was seen when attending physicians classified mesh complications by time, 71 % agreement with kappa 0.73 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.58–0.88]. For the same task, the percentage agreement for fellows was 57 %, kappa 0.55 (95 % CI 0.23–0.87) and with residents 57 %, kappa 0.71([95 % CI 0.64–0.78). Interestingly, the site component of the classification system had the least overall agreement and lowest kappa [0 %, kappa 0.29 (95 % CI 0.26–0.32)] followed by the category component [14 %, kappa 0.48 (95 % CI 0.46–0.5)].

Conclusions

The IUGA/ICS mesh complication classification system has poor interobserver reliability. This trended downward with decreasing postgraduate level; however, we did not have sufficient statistical power to show an association when stratifying by all training levels. This highlights the complex nature of the classification system in its current form and its limitation for widespread clinical and research application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM (2011) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J 22:1445–1457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. FDA Safety Communication (2011) Update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Available via http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed 29 Nov 2012

  4. Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE (2009) Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 113:367–373

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE et al (2011) 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) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22:3–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tunitsky E, Abbott S, Barber MD (2012) Interrater reliability of the International Continence Society and International Urogynecological Association (ICS/IUGA) classification system for mesh-related complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206:442.e1–442.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rice NT, Hu Y, Slaughter JC, Ward RM (2012) Pelvic mesh complications in women before and after the 2011 FDA public health notification. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 18(Suppl 2):S138

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lo TS, Lee SJ (2007) Simple sling resection and a second, intermediate polypropylene mesh for treatment of vaginal tape protrusion concurrent with recurrent urinary stress incontinence after TVT procedure. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 33:739–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Wadi K, Al-Badr A (2009) Martius graft for the management of tension-free vaginal tape vaginal erosion. Obstet Gynecol 114:489–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karp D, Apostolis C, Lefevre R, Davila GW (2009) Atypical graft infection presenting as a remote draining sinus. Obstet Gynecol 114:443–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Collins SA, Tulikangas PK, LaSala CA, Lind LR (2011) Complex sacral abscess 8 years after abdominal sacral colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 118:451–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Parekh MH, Minassian VA, Poplawsky D (2006) Bilateral bladder erosion of a transobturator tape mesh. Obstet Gynecol 108:713–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rafii A, Jacob D, Deval B (2006) Obturator abscess after transobturator tape for stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 108:720–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Boyles SH, McCrery R (2008) Dyspareunia and mesh erosion after vaginal mesh placement with a kit procedure. Obstet Gynecol 111:969–975

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by CTSA award No. UL1TR000445 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences or the National Institutes of Health.

Conflicts of interest

Roger R. Dmochowski is a consultant for Ferring, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Astellas. Melissa R. Kaufman is a consultant for Allergan, American Medical Systems, and Astellas. Meghana Gowda, Laura Chang Kit, W. Stuart Reynolds, and Li Wang have no disclaimers or conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meghana Gowda.

Appendix

Appendix

Test cases extracted from published literature

 

Author

Year

Journal

Antecedent surgery

1

Lo and Lee [8]

2007

J Obstet Gynaecol Res

TVT sling

2

Al-Wadi and Al-Badr [9]

2009

Obstet Gynecol

TVT sling

3

Karp et al. [10]

2009

Obstet Gynecol

Posterior IVS tunneler

4

Collins et al. [11]

2011

Obstet Gynecol

Abdominal sacral colpopexy

5

Parekh et al. [12]

2006

Obstet Gynecol

Transobturator sling

6

Rafii et al. [13]

2006

Obstet Gynecol

Transobturator sling

7

Boyles and McCrery [14]

2008

Obstet Gynecol

Vaginal mesh kit

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gowda, M., Kit, L.C., Stuart Reynolds, W. et al. Interobserver variability when employing the IUGA/ICS classification system for complications related to prostheses and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 24, 1671–1678 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2078-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2078-y

Keywords

Navigation