1-year outcome after treatment of uterovaginal prolapse with a 6-point fixation mesh

Effectiveness and Safety of Posterior Vaginal Repair with Single-Incision, Ultralightweight, Monofilament Propylene Mesh: First Evidence from a Case Series with Short-Term Results

Objective

The use of transvaginal mesh is controversial, and over time, multiple surgical methods for the treatment of posterior vaginal prolapse (PVP) have been proposed including different surgical approaches and techniques. To date, no clear conclusion has been reached about the use of mesh for reinforcing transvaginal posterior repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of a novel, ultralightweight mesh for the treatment of PVP.

Methods

We performed a single-center, prospective observational study on consecutive patients referred for primary or recurrent, symptomatic stage II PVP (according to the international Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System) from April 2017 to September 2018. In all patients, transvaginal posterior repair was augmented with a single-incision, isoelastic polypropylene mesh. Data about the postoperative outcomes were collected until December 2019.

Results

A total number of 15 patients were included. The median follow-up after surgery was 18 months (IQR = 14). Surgery was completed in all cases without complications. Regarding the anatomical outcomes (as measured according to POP-q classification), a significant improvement was observed in terms of Bp, D, and C (p < 0.05). The functional outcomes were significantly ameliorated after surgery, with a reduction of bulge symptom, stypsis, incomplete evacuation, and excessive staining (p < 0.05). The quality of life was significantly improved in the majority of patients (p < 0.05). Median patients' satisfaction rate was 100% (IQR = 22.5%). Neither early nor late postoperative complications occurred.

Conclusions

Single-incision, ultralightweight polypropylene meshes were safe and highly effective in the treatment of PVP. As our study has some limitations, further large, controlled studies are needed.

3 Year outcome after treatment of uterovaginal prolapse with a 6-point fixation mesh

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to describe the intermediate outcome of a single-incision 6-point fixation transvaginal mesh for the treatment of primary and recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study including consecutive patients undergoing POP repair with the InGYNious anterior transvaginal mesh. Inclusion criteria were women with symptomatic stage II POP or higher. Exclusion criteria were the unwillingness or inability to give written informed consent, malignant diseases, neuro-muscular disorders, chronic pain syndrome or previous radiation in the pelvis. Every study participant completed a structured questionnaire, a urogynecological examination according to the IUGA-ICS POP-Q staging system and the validated P-QoL questionnaire before the operation and three years postoperatively.

RESULTS

254 patients were included into the study, 179 were available for the three-year follow-up (70 %). Sixteen patients (8.2 %) had undergone reoperation for recurrent or de novo prolapse (12/16 patients underwent reoperation in the posterior compartment) and were excluded from the objective outcome analysis. In the final study group, all POP-Q measurements, urge urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction were significantly improved. The de novo SUI rate was 27/ 120 (23 %) in women without reoperation for SUI and/ or POP and without primary SUI. No serious adverse events occurred. Four (1.5 %) patients had mesh exposure at the one-year follow-up and been treated with local oestrogen. At three-year follow-up, no new mesh exposure was seen. De novo dyspareunia rate was low (n = 5 (3 %)).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the objective outcome three years after anterior POP repair with the InGYNious transvaginal mesh was good. The reoperation rate both for mesh related problems or prolapse were rare.

The international discussion and the new regulations concerning transvaginal mesh implants in pelvic organ prolapse surgery

The use of transvaginal mesh implants for POP and urinary incontinence is currently being extensively debated among experts as well as the general public. Regulations surrounding the use of these implants differ depending on the country. Although in the USA, the UK, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and France, transvaginal mesh implants have been removed from the market, in most mainland European countries, Asia, and South America, they are still available as a surgical option for POP correction. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the historical timeline and the current situation worldwide, as well as to critically discuss the implications of the latest developments in urogynecological patient care and the training of doctors.

1-year outcome after treatment of uterovaginal prolapse with a 6-point fixation mesh

Introduction

The aim of this study was to describe the safety and anatomical results of a surgical approach with a single‐incision 6‐point fixation vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse at perioperatively and at 1‐year follow‐up.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective observational study of patients who underwent operation receiving an InGYNious anterior transvaginal mesh. All patients with symptomatic stage II prolapse or higher were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were the unwillingness or inability to give written informed consent, neuromuscular disorders, malignant diseases, previous radiation in the pelvis, or chronic pain syndrome. Every patient completed a structured questionnaire and a full physical examination according to the IUGA‐ICS POP‐Q staging system before the operation and at 1‐year follow‐up.

Results

Two hundred fifty‐four patients (91%) were included in the study. The intraoperative complication rate was 7% with hemorrhage being the most common complication. Six patients (2.4%) had undergone reoperation for prolapse (four out of the six patients had reoperation in the posterior compartment) and were excluded from the objective outcome analysis. In the remaining 248 patients all POP‐Q measurements were significantly improved in the anterior and apical compartments. Similarly, urge urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction improved significantly.

Conclusions

In this series, the objective outcome one year after the InGYNious mesh was good with low numbers of mesh‐related problems or reoperation for prolapse.