Triple-compartment strategy for abdominal sacral colpopexy using PVDF mesh: one-year report of anatomical and subjective outcomes

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Abdominal Sacral Colpopexy (ASC) is one of the best surgical methods to repair apical or uterine prolapse. We aimed to evaluate the short-term results of a triple-compartment open ASC strategy using polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh in the treatment of patients with severe apical or uterine prolapse.

METHODS

Women with high-grade uterine or apical prolapse with or without cysto-rectocele were prospectively enrolled in the study from April 2015 to June 2021. We performed all-compartment repair using a tailored PVDF mesh for ASC. We assessed the severity of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system at baseline and 12 months after the operation. The patients completed the International Continence Society Questionnaire Vaginal Symptom (ICIQ-VS) questionnaire at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Thirty-five women with a mean age of 59.8±10.0 years were included in the final analysis. Stage III and stage IV prolapse was evident in 12 and 25 patients, respectively. After 12 months, the median POP-Q stage was significantly lower compared to the baseline (4 vs 0, p=<0.0001). Vaginal symptoms score was also reduced significantly at 3-month (7.5±3.5), 6-month (7.3±3.6), and 12-month (7.2±3.1) compared to the baseline (39.5±6.7) (p values < 0.0001). We did not observe any mesh extrusion or high-grade complications. Six (16.7%) patients had cystocele recurrence during the 12-month follow-up, and two of them needed reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our short-term follow-up showed that using an open ASC technique with PVDF mesh in treating high-grade apical or uterine prolapse is associated with a high rate of procedural success and low rates of complication.

AbsorbaTack™ vs. ProTack™ vs. sutures: a biomechanical analysis of cervical fixation methods for laparoscopic apical fixations in the porcine model

PURPOSE

Treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) often requires the use of synthetic mesh. In case of a novel and standardized bilateral apical fixation, both uterosacral ligaments are replaced by polyvinylidene-fluoride (PVDF) tapes. One of the main problems remains the fixation method, which should be stable, but also simple and quick to use. The current study evaluated biomechanical differences between the cervical tape fixation with sutures (group 1), non-absorbable tacks (group 2) and absorbable tacks (group 3) in an in vitro porcine model.

METHODS

A total of 28 trials, conducted in three groups, were performed on porcine, fresh cadaver uteri. All trials were performed until mesh, tissue or fixation device failure occurred. Primary endpoints were the biomechanical properties maximum load (N), displacement at failure (mm) and stiffness (N/mm). The failure mode was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between all three groups concerning the maximum load. Group 1 (sutures) supported a maximum load of 64 ± 15 N, group 2 (non-absorbable tacks) yielded 41 ± 10 N and group 3 (absorbable tacks) achieved 15 ± 8 N. The most common failure mode was a mesh failure for group 1 and 2 and a fixation device failure for group 3.

CONCLUSION

The PVDF-tape fixation with sutures supports 1.5 times the load that is supported by non-absorbable tacks and 4.2 times the load that is supported by absorbable tacks. Nevertheless, there was also a stable fixation through tacks. Sutures are the significantly stronger and cheaper fixation device but may prolong the surgical time in contrast to the use of tacks.

Tacks vs. sutures: a biomechanical analysis of sacral bony fixation methods for laparoscopic apical fixations in the porcine model

Purpose

There is a novel surgical procedure, called cervicosacropexy (CESA) and vaginosacropexy (VASA) to treat pelvic organ prolapse and a concomitant urgency and mixed urinary incontinence. As there is little experience with the tapes so far and literature is scanty, the aim of this study was to investigate biomechanical properties for the fixation of the PVDF-tapes with three different fixation methods in context of apical fixations.

Methods

Evaluation was performed on porcine, fresh cadaver sacral spines. A total of 40 trials, divided into 4 subgroups, was performed on the anterior longitudinal ligament. Recorded biomechanical properties were displacement at failure, maximum load and stiffness in terms of the primary endpoints. The failure mode was a secondary endpoint. Group 4 was a reference group to compare single sutures on porcine tissue with those on human tissue. Biomechanical parameters for single sutures on the human anterior longitudinal ligament were evaluated in a previous work by Hachenberg et al.

Results

The maximum load for group 1 (two single sutures) was 65 ± 12 N, for group 2 (three titanium tacks arranged in a row) it was 25 ± 10 N and for group 3 (three titanium tacks arranged in a triangle) it was 38 ± 12 N. There was a significant difference between all three groups. The most common failure mode was a “mesh failure” in 9/10 trials for groups 1–3.

Conclusion

The PVDF-tape fixation with two single sutures endures 2.6 times more load than titanium tacks arranged in a row and 1.7 times more load than titanium tacks arranged in a triangle. The presacral fixation with titanium tacks reduced surgical time compared to the fixation with sutures, nevertheless sutures represent the significantly stronger and cheaper fixation method.

Outcomes of Prophylactic Mid-Urethral Sling at the Time of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) with and without concomitant mid-urethral sling (MUS) placement for prophylaxis or treatment of preoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients without prior incontinence procedures who underwent RSC with or without MUS placement by 3 surgeons (JA, LA, KE) at a single institution from 2012 to 2017 for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Patients had a MUS placed for either documented SUI or prophylaxis of SUI. We compared patient characteristics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, and complications between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were identified. 58 (43%) had a MUS placed for documented SUI, 43 (32%) had prophylactic MUS, and 33 (25%) did not have a MUS placed. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the 3 groups. Patients who did not have a MUS placed had less estimated blood loss (76.4 vs 63.8 vs 36.9 mL, P = .018) but no difference in operative time (P = .408), length of stay (P = .427), or postoperative urinary retention (P = .988). A total of 4 (7%) patients who had a MUS placed for SUI had persistent SUI postoperatively. There were 2 (5%) patients who had a MUS placed prophylactically and 4 (12%) patients who did not have a MUS that developed de novo SUI.

CONCLUSION

In this series, we demonstrate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic MUS placement at the time of RSC. Randomized studies evaluating concomitant prophylactic sling at time of robotic sacrocolpopexy could further guide preoperative patient counseling and decision-making.