Mesh retraction correlates with vaginal pain and overactive bladder symptoms after anterior vaginal mesh repair

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of the present study was to determine possible correlations between mesh retraction after anterior vaginal mesh repair and de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI), overactive bladder (OAB), and vaginal pain symptoms.

Methods

One hundred and three women with symptomatic prolapse of the anterior vaginal wall, stages 3 and 4 based on the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system, underwent Prolift anterior? implantation. At a 6-month follow-up, the patients were interviewed for de novo SUI, OAB, and vaginal pain, and underwent an introital/transvaginal ultrasound examination to measure the mesh length in the midsagittal plane.

Results

Mesh retraction was significantly larger in a subgroup of patients (n?=?20; 19.4 %) presenting de novo OAB symptoms on the follow-up assessment compared with those without this complication (5.0 cm vs. 4.3 cm; p?<?0.05). Mesh retraction was also significantly larger in a subgroup of patients (n?=?23; 22.3 %) reporting postoperative vaginal pain compared with the women who did not report any postoperative vaginal pain (5.3 cm vs. 4.2 cm; p?<?0.01). A significant correlation was found between mesh retraction and the severity of vaginal pain (R?=?0.4, p?<?0.01). Mesh retraction did not differ between patients with de novo SUI symptoms and those without this complication.

Conclusions

Mesh retraction assessed on ultrasound examination after anterior vaginal mesh repair may correlate with de novo OAB symptoms and vaginal pain.     

Anterior vaginal compartment surgery

Aim

To review the safety and efficacy of anterior vaginal compartment pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Methods

Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 case reports. The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. A grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. A grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or “majority evidence” from RCTs. A grade C recommendation usually depends on level studies or “majority evidence” from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. A grade D “no recommendation possible” would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi.

Results

Absorbable mesh augmentation of anterior compartment native tissue repair improves the anatomical outcome compared with native tissue repair alone with no increased complication rate in meta-analysis of 2 RCTS (grade B). Biological grafts in meta-analysis have improved anatomical outcomes with no change in subjective outcomes compared with native tissue repairs (grade B). There is conflicting level 1 evidence to support porcine dermis and a single RCT to support small intestine submucosa as graft agents in anterior compartment prolapse surgery (grade B). Consistent level 1 data support a superior anatomical outcome for polypropylene mesh compared with a biological graft in the anterior compartment. Mesh exposure rate was significantly higher in the polypropylene mesh group (grade A). Consistent level 1 evidence demonstrates superior subjective and objective outcomes following anterior transvaginal polypropylene mesh as compared to anterior colporrhaphy (grade A). These outcomes did not translate into improved functional results using validated questionnaires or a lower reoperation rate for prolapse. The mesh group was also associated with longer operating time, greater blood loss and apical or posterior compartment prolapse as compared with anterior repair. Anterior polypropylene mesh had a mesh extrusion rate of 10.4 % with 6.3 % requiring a surgical correction (grade B). Single level 3 evidence does not support the use of transvaginal polypropylene mesh for recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse (grade C).

Conclusion

Polypropylene anterior compartment mesh offers improved objective and subjective outcomes compared with native tissue repair; however, these benefits must be considered in the context of increased morbidity associated with anterior polypropylene transvaginal mesh.     

Prolapse surgery in octogenarians: are we pushing the limits too far?

Purpose

To report our experience with pelvic reconstructive surgery with transobturator mesh implants in elderly women.

Materials and methods

A total of 32 women aged >75 years with pelvic organ prolapse receiving anterior and/or posterior repair using transobturator mesh implants were included. Concomitant mid-urethral sling procedure was performed in 78 % women. Postoperative outcome data and quality-of-life measurements were recorded prospectively. Patients were followed for up to 24 months.

Results

Mean age at surgery was 82.8 ± 3.1 years. A total of 15 anterior repairs, 8 posterior repairs, and 9 posterior and anterior repairs were performed using transobturator mesh implants. Concomitant synthetic mid-urethral transobturator sling procedure was performed in 25 women (78 %). Mean operating time was 47.2 ± 22.3 min, and the mean hospitalization period was 5.9 ± 1.6 days. There were no systemic complications related to anesthesia or surgery. Two patients required intraoperative bladder suturing due to iatrogenic bladder lesion. There were no rectal injuries, no bleeding necessitating transfusion, voiding dysfunction, or erosions of synthetic implants. Pelvic floor testing at 24 months postoperatively showed 15 % of the patients presenting with stage II vaginal wall prolapse. Further, quality-of-life parameters, as measured by SF-36 questionnaire, were improved compared to baseline values.

Conclusions

Pelvic reconstructive surgery in elderly women is safe and enhances the quality of life. However, special caution should be paid to risks and benefits of such surgery in this patient population.     

Transvaginal removal of mesh exposure involving the bladder

Introduction and hypothesis

We present three cases of transvaginal removal of mesh exposure involving the bladder, including patient follow-up. Mesh exposure occurred secondary to placement of transvaginal mesh for management of pelvic organ prolapse.

Methods

A pure transvaginal technique was performed to remove mesh exposure involving the bladder. Patient follow-ups were carefully recorded.

Results

All operative steps were completed transvaginally. The duration of follow-up for the three cases was 6, 11, and 19 months. One patient experienced recurrence of mesh exposure during follow-up. The other two patients were symptom-free after surgery. There were no major postoperative complications and no recurrence of cystocele.

Conclusions

Transvaginal removal of mesh exposure involving the bladder is feasible. The pure transvaginal approach is applicable to various conditions with good outcomes, yet it cannot guarantee that exposure of residual fibers within the bladder will not recur.     

A randomized controlled trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh

Introduction and hypothesis

Our aim was to compare anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh.

Methods

This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in a teaching hospital. Sixty-eight women with stage ≥3 anterior vaginal wall prolapse according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system were assessed, randomized, and analyzed. Patients were randomized to anterior colporrhaphy with vaginal colposuspension (n?=?35) or transvaginal mesh (n?=?33). Primary outcome was objective cure rate of the anterior vaginal wall, defined as POP-Q ≤1 at 2 years. Secondary outcomes were functional results, quality-of-life (QoL) scores, mesh-related morbidity, and onset of urinary incontinence.

Results

The anatomical result for point Ba was significantly better at 2 years in the mesh group (?2.8 cm) than in the colposuspension group (?2.4 cm) (p?=?0.02). Concerning POP-Q stages, the anatomical success rate at 2 years was 84.4 % for colposuspension and 100 % for mesh (p?=?0.05). There were 5 anatomic recurrences (15.6 %) in the colposuspension group. The erosion rate was 6 % (n?=?2). No significant difference was noted regarding minor complications. Analysis of QoL questionnaires showed overall improvement in both groups, with no significant difference between them.

Conclusions

The vaginal colposuspension technique of anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair gave good anatomical and functional results at 2 years. Transobturator vaginal mesh gave better 2-year anatomical results than vaginal colposuspension, with overall improvement in QoL in both groups.     

Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse

Introduction and hypothesis

To estimate the risk of repeat surgery for recurrent prolapse or mesh removal after vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse.

Methods

We utilized longitudinal, adjudicated, healthcare claims from 2005 to 2010 to identify women ≥18 years who underwent an anterior colporrhaphy (CPT 57420) with or without concurrent vaginal mesh (CPT 57267). The primary outcome was repeat surgery for anterior or apical prolapse or for mesh removal/revision; these outcomes were also analyzed separately. We utilized Kaplan–Meier curves to estimate the cumulative risk of each outcome after vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair, adjusted for age, concurrent hysterectomy, and concurrent or recent sling.

Results

We identified 27,809 anterior prolapse surgeries with 49,658 person-years of follow-up. Of those, 6,871 (24.7%) included vaginal mesh. The 5-year cumulative risk of any repeat surgery was significantly higher for vaginal mesh versus native tissue (15.2 % vs 9.8 %, p?<0.0001) with a 5-year risk of mesh revision/removal of 5.9%. The 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse was similar between vaginal mesh and native tissue groups (10.4 % vs 9.3 %, p?=?0.70. The results of the adjusted Cox model were similar (HR 0.93, 95%CI: 0.83, 1.05).

Conclusions

The use of mesh for anterior prolapse was associated with an increased risk of any repeat surgery, which was driven by surgery for mesh removal. Native tissue and vaginal mesh surgery had similar 5-year risks for surgery for recurrent prolapse.     

Do we need meshes in pelvic floor reconstruction?

Objectives

Transvaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse has gained popularity because of excellent anatomical outcomes, but postoperative mesh-related complications have lead to a number of cautious reviews and warnings. This review focuses on functional outcomes after synthetic transvaginal mesh placement.

Methods

MEDLINE database was searched from 2010 to August 2011 for original articles on transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse not included in recent reviews. The following search terms were used: pelvic organ prolapse, genital prolapse, cystocele, rectocele and mesh, synthetic graft, and repair. Studies were assessed and appropriate data extracted and tabularized. Studies were excluded if the follow-up time was less than 12?months and if studies did not contain original data or data on subjective outcome.

Results

Eleven studies irregularly reported functional outcomes. After trocar-guided transobturator vaginal mesh surgery, symptomatic recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse was reported between 7 and 33%. If analyzed cumulatively, 76 of 370 patients (21%) complained of prolapse symptoms postoperatively. De novo stress urinary incontinence occurred in 12–17% and persisted in up to 68% after trocar-guided mesh surgery. De novo dyspareunia was present between 2 and 15%, worsened or de novo dyspareunia between 25 and 44%. Deteriorating coital incontinence was described in 6 of 16 women after anterior Prolift in one trial.

Conclusions

When counseling women for pelvic reconstructive surgery, we should provide them with evidence-based information on functional outcomes and subsequently take the patient’s concerns and preferences into account. Pelvic floor symptoms were scarcely reported in reviewed trials, but demonstrated a worse scenario than anatomical outcomes.     

Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT

Introduction and hypothesis

To compare the efficacy of a collagen-coated polypropylene mesh and anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of stage 2 or more anterior vaginal wall prolapse.

Methods

Prospective, randomized, multicenter study conducted between April 2005 and December 2009. The principal endpoint was the recurrence rate of stage 2 or more anterior vaginal wall prolapse 12 months after surgery. Secondary endpoints consisted of functional results and mesh-related morbidity.

Results

One hundred and forty-seven patients were included, randomized and analyzed: 72 in the anterior colporrhaphy group and 75 in the mesh group. The anatomical success rate was significantly higher in the mesh group (89 %) than in the colporrhaphy group (64 %) (p?=?0.0006). Anatomical and functional recurrence was also less frequent in the mesh group (31.3 % vs 52.2 %, p?=?0.007). Two patients (2.8 %) were reoperated on in the colporrhaphy group for anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence. No significant difference was noted regarding minor complications. An erosion rate of 9.5 % was noted. De novo dyspareunia occurred in 1/14 patients in the colporrhaphy group and in 3/13 patients in the mesh group. An analysis of the quality of life questionnaires showed an overall improvement in both groups, with no statistical difference between them. Satisfaction rates were high in both groups (92 % in the colporrhaphy group and 96 % in the mesh group).

Conclusion

Trans-obturator Ugytex® mesh used to treat anterior vaginal wall prolapse gives better 1-year anatomical results than traditional anterior colporrhaphy, but with small a increase in morbidity in the mesh group.     

Single-incision apical and posterior mesh repair: 1-year prospective outcomes

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the Elevate Apical and Posterior single-incision mesh system (SIMS) with IntePro Lite for pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Methods

This prospective multicenter study included 139 women with ≥ stage II posterior vaginal prolapse and/or apical descent who underwent placement of type I polypropylene mesh through a single transvaginal incision with no external needle passes. Primary endpoint was the percent of patients with posterior and/or apical stage ≤ I (“cure”) at follow-up. Secondary endpoints included, but were not limited to, rate of mesh extrusion and disease-specific quality of life outcomes.

Results

At 12?months, objective posterior wall and apical cure rates were 92.5 and 89.2?%, respectively, with an extrusion rate of 6.5?%.

Conclusions

The SIMS appears to be effective and safe in treating patients with posterior vaginal and/or apical prolapse. The risks and benefits of transvaginal synthetic mesh insertion should be considered.     

The use of transvaginal synthetic mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of transvaginal trocar-guided polypropylene mesh insertion with traditional colporrhaphy for treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse.

Methods

This is a randomized controlled trial in which women with advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse, at least stage II with Ba?≥?+1 cm according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) classification, were randomly assigned to have either anterior colporrhaphy (n?=?39) or repair using trocar-guided transvaginal mesh (n?=?40). The primary outcome was objective cure rate of the anterior compartment (point Ba) assessed at the 12-month follow-up visit, with stages 0 and I defined as anatomical success. Secondary outcomes included quantification of other vaginal compartments (POP-Q points), comparison of quality of life by the prolapse quality of life (P-QOL) questionnaire, and complication rate between the groups after 1 year. Study power was fixed as 80 % with 5 % cutoff point (p?<?0.05) for statistical significance.

Results

The groups were similar regarding demographic and clinical preoperative parameters. Anatomical success rates for colporrhaphy and repair with mesh placement groups were 56.4 vs 82.5 % (95 % confidence interval 0.068–0.54), respectively, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (p?=?0.018). Similar total complication rates were observed in both groups, with tape exposure observed in 5 % of the patients. There was a significant improvement in all P-QOL domains as a result of both procedures (p?<?0.001), but they were not distinct between groups (p?>?0.05).

Conclusions

Trocar-guided transvaginal synthetic mesh for advanced anterior POP repair is associated with a higher anatomical success rate for the anterior compartment compared with traditional colporrhaphy. Quality of life equally improved after both techniques. However, the trial failed to detect differences in P-QOL scores and complication rates between the groups.     

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed transvaginal polypropylene mesh surgery

Introduction and hypothesis

A prospective case series to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the surgical management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) after transvaginal polypropylene mesh prolapse surgery.

Methods

Between January and December 2010, women with post-hysterectomy recurrent prolapse (≥ stage 2 POP-Q) after transvaginal polypropylene mesh prolapse surgery were included. Perioperative morbidity and short-term complications were recorded and evaluated. Surgical outcomes were objectively assessed utilising the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q), the validated, condition-specific Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) at 12 months.

Results

All 16 women in this study had undergone surgery with trocar-guided transvaginal polypropylene mesh kits. In 75% the recurrent prolapse affected the compartment of prior mesh surgery with the anterior (81%) and apical (75%) compartment prolapse predominating. At a mean follow-up of 12 months, all women had resolution of awareness of prolapse, had < stage 2 POP-Q on examination and high levels of satisfaction on PGI-I post surgery. There were no serious peri- or postoperative complications.

Conclusions

This preliminary study suggests that laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent prolapse after failed transvaginal mesh surgery is feasible and safe. Further widespread evaluation is required.     

Pure transvaginal excision of mesh erosion involving the bladder

Introduction and hypothesis

We present a pure transvaginal approach to the removal of eroded mesh involving the bladder secondary to placement of transvaginal mesh for management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using a mesh kit.

Methods

Although technically challenging, we demonstrate the feasibility of a purely transvaginal approach, avoiding a potentially more morbid transabdominal approach.

Results

The video presents the surgical technique of pure transvaginal excision of mesh erosion involving the bladder after mesh placement using a prolapse kit was performed.

Conclusions

This video shows that purely transvaginal removal of mesh erosion involving the bladder can be done safely and is feasible.     

Clinical efficacy of a trocar-guided mesh kit for repairing lateral defects

Introduction and hypothesis

The optimal surgery for lateral defects is not well defined. Our objective was to assess the effects of anterior trocar-guided transvaginal mesh repair versus anterior colporrhaphy in women with lateral defects.

Methods

This subanalysis from a randomized controlled trial of mesh kit versus anterior colporrhaphy assessed 99 patient diagnosed at baseline with lateral defects in the anterior vaginal wall. Thirty-nine patients underwent anterior colporrhaphy and 60 anterior trocar-guided transvaginal mesh surgery.

Results

One year after surgery, a persistent lateral defect was significantly more common after colporrhaphy compared with transvaginal mesh [11/32 (34.4 %) vs 1/42 (2.4 %), risk ratio (RR) 14.4, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.0–106.1; P?<?0.001)] However, there were no significant differences between treatment groups with regard to subjective symptoms as reflected by the overall Urogenital Distress Inventory scores, with mean difference from baseline 37.3?±?50.6 in the colporrhaphy group vs 39.0?±?45.8 in the mesh group (p?=?0.61).

Conclusions

Use of a transvaginal mesh kit increases the odds for anatomical correction of lateral defects compared with anterior colporrhaphy but does not necessarily improve lower urinary tract symptoms.     

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for stage III pelvic organ prolapse

Introduction and hypothesis

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and can be performed laparoscopically. Robotic assistance allows optimal dissection and placement of the prosthesis. We present a video of our technique along with the results on 90 patients.

Methods

We perform a posterior dissection down to the levator muscles and an anterior dissection down to the trigone. The meshes are made of polyester (mersuture®). The posterior mesh is sutured to the levator muscles, to the rectum above the anorectal junction, below the uterosacral ligaments, and to the isthmus/cervix. The anterior mesh is sutured to the vagina and the isthmus/cervix and attached to the promontory with a tension measured through a vaginal exam.

Results

We operated on 90 patients. There was an additional procedure in 71 cases (either subtotal hysterectomy, adnexectomy, adhesiolysis, or rectopexy). The mean operative time was 246 min (180–415). Perioperative complications were one vaginal effraction and a case of sigmoidal perforation during an adhesiolysis. Early complications were two cases of bowel hernia through port sites. The mean hospital stay was 3.48 days (2–11). The mean follow-up is 15.6 months (range 1–45). Six patients have a persistent stage II prolapse. We observed no retraction of the prosthesis and no dyspareunia.

Conclusions

With this technique we performed a complete treatment for severe prolapse by a minimally invasive approach with a low rate of recurrence at this point.     

Apical prolapse

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim was to review the safety and efficacy of pelvic organ prolapse surgery for vaginal apical prolapse.

Methods

Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials (RCT) or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 case reports. The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and or 3 studies, or “majority evidence” from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or “majority evidence? from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D “no recommendation possible” would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi.

Results

Abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) has a higher success rate than sacrospinous colpopexy with less SUI and postoperative dyspareunia for vault prolapse. ASC had greater morbidity including operating time, inpatient stay, slower return to activities of daily living and higher cost (grade A). ASC has the lowest inpatient costs compared with laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) and robotic sacral colpopexy (RSC). LSC has lower inpatient costs than RSC (grade B).In single RCTs the RSC had longer operating time than both ASC and LSC (grade B). In small trials objective outcomes appear similar although postoperative pain was greater in RSC. LSC is as effective as ASC with reduced blood loss and admission time (grade C). The data relating to operating time are conflicting. ASC performed with polypropylene mesh has superior outcomes to fascia lata (level I), porcine dermis and small intestine submucosa (level 3; grade B). In a single RCT, LSC had a superior objective and subjective success rate and lower reoperation rate compared with polypropylene transvaginal mesh for vault prolapse (grade B).Level 3 evidence suggests that vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension, McCall culdoplasty, iliococcygeus fixation and colpocleisis are relatively safe and effective interventions (grade C).

Conclusion

Sacral colpopexy is an effective procedure for vault prolapse and further data are required on the route of performance and efficacy of this surgery for uterine prolapse. Polypropylene mesh is the preferred graft at ASC. Vaginal procedures for vault prolapse are well described and are suitable alternatives for those not suitable for sacral colpopexy.     

Single-incision mesh repair versus traditional native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: results of a cohort study

Introduction and hypothesis

To compare the efficacy and safety of the Elevate? anterior and posterior prolapse repair system and traditional vaginal native tissue repair in the treatment of stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse.

Methods

A cohort study was conducted between January 2010 and July 2012. Patients who underwent transvaginal pelvic reconstruction surgery for prolapse were recruited. The primary outcome was anatomical success 1 year after surgery. The secondary outcome included changes in the quality of life and surgical complications. Recurrence of prolapse was defined as stage 2 or higher prolapse based upon the pelvic organ prolapse qQuantification system.

Results

Two hundred and one patients (100 in the Elevate? repair group and 101 in the traditional repair group) were recruited and analyzed. The anatomical success rate of the anterior compartment was significantly higher in the Elevate? repair group than in the traditional repair group (98 % vs 87 %, p?=?0.006), but not for the apical (99 % vs. 6 %, p?=?0.317) or posterior (100 % vs 97 %, p?=?0.367) compartments after a median 12 months of follow-up. Both groups showed significant improvements in the quality of life after surgery with no statistical difference. Mesh-related complications included extrusion (3 %) and the need for revision of the vaginal wound (1 %). Those in the mesh repair group had a longer hospital stay (p?=?0.04), operative time (p?<?0.001), and greater estimated blood loss (p?=?0.05). Other complications were comparable with no statistical difference.

Conclusions

The Elevate? prolapse repair system had a better 1-year anatomical cure rate of the anterior compartment than traditional repair, with slightly increased morbidity.     

Transischioanal trans-sacrospinous ligament rectocele repair with polypropylene mesh: a prospective study with assessment of rectoanal function

Introduction and hypothesis

Despite good anatomical outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair by the vaginal route using synthetic mesh, complications limit their use. Clinical data are needed to generalize prolapse mesh repair by the vaginal route. The current study aims to evaluate midterm rectoanal function and clinical outcomes after transischioanal rectocele repair using a medium weight polypropylene mesh.

Methods

Between March 2003 and June 2004, 230 patients with stage II–IV anterior and/or posterior POP were included in a prospective multicenter study. The current study is based on the analysis of the 116 patients who underwent a rectocele repair via the infracoccygeal route through the sacrospinous ligament. Anatomical cure was defined when rectocele was at stage <II in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Postoperative functional results were evaluated using the self-administered Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ).

Results

Of the 116 patients who received a posterior mesh with two arms via the infracoccygeal route through the sacrospinous ligament, midterm anatomical results were available for 78 women representing 67 % (78/116) of the operated patients. The mean follow-up was 36 (± 8.1) months. No rectal injury occurred during surgery. The objective success rate was 94.8 % and subjective (by patient satisfaction) was 93.23 %. Colorectal-Anal Impact (CRAI) and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI) scores were both significantly decreased at midterm follow-up in comparison with baseline (42.7 at baseline vs 11.4 at 24- or 36-month follow-up, p?=?0.001 for CRAI, and 81.1 vs 34.4, p?<?0.001 for CRADI) highlighting the benefits of rectocele repair on colorectal-anal function.

Conclusions

Polypropylene mesh with two arms via the infracoccygeal route through the sacrospinous ligament has good anatomical results at midterm follow-up with significant improvement in symptoms and quality of life and is associated with few complications. Obstructive symptoms reported in cases of rectocele can be improved by transvaginal mesh repair.     

A novel transvaginal approach to correct recurrent apical prolapse after failed sacral colpopexy: case series

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of the study was to describe the transvaginal approach utilizing the existing sacral colpopexy (SC) graft for recurrent apical prolapse following failed SC.

Methods

Twenty-two patients with recurrent vaginal vault prolapse following a prior SC were treated between January 2000 and December 2009. Twelve patients had a standard uterosacral ligament cuff suspension (USLS) performed. In ten patients, the vaginal cuff was suspended to the left uterosacral ligament and reattached to the graft material from the prior SC. One of these ten subsequently failed and a standard USLS was performed. Patient characteristics, preoperative pelvic floor assessment, operative information, and postoperative follow-up were collected. Cases in which the graft material was used were compared with those undergoing standard USLS.

Results

Demographic characteristics and preoperative Baden-Walker scores were similar. Of 23 cases, 21 (91?%) were a consequence of graft separation from the vagina and not the sacrum. Two of nine patients with follow-up where the SC graft was utilized transvaginally had recurrent prolapse. One required reoperation. Of 13 patients in the group that underwent traditional USLS, 2 had asymptomatic recurrent anterior prolapse; neither required additional surgery.

Conclusions

A transvaginal surgical approach for recurrent vaginal prolapse after a history of failed abdominal SC should be considered. If feasible, the SC graft material can be used when performing USLS instead of the right uterosacral ligament for these patients with a prior history of abdominal SC.     

The UK National Prolapse Survey: 10 years on

Introduction and hypothesis

To assess trends in the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) amongst UK practitioners and changes in practice since a previous similar survey.

Methods

An online questionnaire survey (Typeform Pro) was emailed to British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) members. They included urogynaecologists working in tertiary centres, gynaecologists with a designated special interest in urogynaecology and general gynaecologists. The questionnaire included case scenarios encompassing contentious issues in the surgical management of POP and was a revised version of the questionnaire used in the previous surveys. The revised questionnaire included additional questions relating to the use of vaginal mesh and laparoscopic urogynaecology procedures.

Results

Of 516 BSUG members emailed, 212 provided completed responses.. For anterior vaginal wall prolapse the procedure of choice was anterior colporrhaphy (92% of respondents). For uterovaginal prolapse the procedure of choice was still vaginal hysterectomy and repair (75%). For posterior vaginal wall prolapse the procedure of choice was posterior colporrhaphy with midline fascial plication (97%). For vault prolapse the procedure of choice was sacrocolpopexy (54%) followed by vaginal wall repair and sacrospinous fixation (41%). The laparoscopic route was preferred for sacrocolpopexy (62% versus 38% for the open procedure). For primary prolapse, vaginal mesh was used by only 1% of respondents in the anterior compartment and by 3% in the posterior compartment.

Conclusion

Basic trends in the use of native tissue prolapse surgery remain unchanged. There has been a significant decrease in the use of vaginal mesh for both primary and recurrent prolapse, with increasing use of laparoscopic procedures for prolapse.