Biologic grafts for cystocele repair: does concomitant midline fascial plication improve surgical outcomes?

The Comparison of Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery with and without Midline Fascial Plication for the Treatment of Anterior Vaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of transvaginal mesh (TVM) surgery with and without midline fascial plication for anterior prolapse repair. This is a prospective randomized trial in a teaching hospital. This study compared patients with anterior vaginal wall prolapse (POP-Q Ba > −1) who were randomly assigned to either transvaginal mesh (TVM, Avaulta Solo^TM, CR Bard. Inc., Covington, GA, USA polypropylene mesh delivery system) (group A, n = 32) or TVM with concomitant midline fascial plication (group B, n = 32). The outcomes of anatomy correction and life quality were evaluated using a pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and questionnaires. Sixty-four patients were included from January 2011 through April 2014 in this study. Group A had a mean age of 63.7 years and a body mass index (BMI) of 25.4 kg/m². Group B had a mean age of 62.9 years and a BMI of 25.4. The mean follow-up duration was 18.6 months (range 12–50). At the 12-month follow-up, anatomic recurrence was higher in Group A (5/31, 16.1%) than in Group B (1/30, 3.3%) but without statistical significance (p = 0.19). Improvements in symptoms and quality of life were not significantly different between the two groups. Mesh extrusion was detected in three of 61 patients (4.9%): two from group A (6.7%) and one from Group B (3.2%). TVM with concomitant midline fascia repair for anterior vaginal prolapse had a comparable anterior support and mesh exposure rate compared with TVM alone. Trial Registration: IRB-B09904021

The outcome of transobturator anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair using porcine dermis graft: intermediate term follow-up

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We evaluated the anatomical success and complications of Perigee® with porcine dermis Graft in the repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse (AVWP) MATERIALS AND METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, the charts of all patients who underwent AVWP repair using the Perigee/InteXen® kit from July 2005 to July 2009 were reviewed. Patients who had less than 6-month follow-up were excluded. Preoperative data including patient age, previous AVWP repairs, hysterectomy status, preoperative dyspareunia and pertinent physical findings were collected and recorded. Postoperative success was defined as anatomical stage 0 or I using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scoring system. Graft related complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

Out of 89 patients, 69 completed at least 6-month follow-up. Median follow-up was 13 (6-48) months. Seventeen patients (25%) had previous AVWP repair and 32 (46%) had previous hysterectomy. Preoperatively, AVWP stage II was found in 9 (13%), stage III in 27 (39%) and stage IV in 33 (48%) patients. Anatomic success was found in 48 (69%) patients, with 23 (33%) having stage 0 and 25 (36%) stage I AVWP. Intraoperative complications included incidental cystotomy in one patient and bladder perforation in one. Postoperative complications included vaginal exposure and dyspareunia in one case, wound dehiscence in one and tenderness over the graft arm with dyspareunia in one.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of porcine dermis in AVWP repair is safe with minimal graft related complications; however, anatomical success is lower than that reported with the use of synthetic grafts.

Mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery and their management: A systematic review

We reviewed the incidence, predisposing factors, presentation and management of complications related to the use of synthetic mesh in the management of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse repair. Immediate complications, such as bleeding, hematoma, injury to adjacent organs during placement of mesh and complication of voiding dysfunction are not discussed in this review, since they are primarily related to technique. A PubMed search of related articles published in English was done from April 2008 to March 2011. Key words used were urinary incontinence, mesh, complications, midurethral sling, anterior prolapse, anterior vaginal repair, pelvic organ prolapse, transvaginal mesh, vault prolapse, midurethral slings, female stress urinary incontinence, mesh erosion, vaginal mesh complications, and posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Since there were very few articles dealing with the management of mesh-related complications in the period covered in the search we extended the search from January 2005 onwards. Articles were selected to fit the scope of the topic. In addition, landmark publications and Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) data (FDA website) were included on the present topic. A total of 170 articles were identified. The use of synthetic mesh in sub-urethral sling procedures is now considered the standard for the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence. Synthetic mesh is being increasingly used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. While the incidence of extrusion and erosion with mid-urethral sling is low, the extrusion rate in prolapse repair is somewhat higher and the use in posterior compartment remains controversial. When used through the abdominal approach the extrusion and erosion rates are lower. The management of mesh complication is an individualized approach. The choice of the technique should be based on the type of mesh complication, location of the extrusion and/or erosion, its magnitude, severity and potential recurrence of pelvic floor defect.

Selection of patients in whom vaginal graft use may be appropriate. Consensus of the 2nd IUGA Grafts Roundtable: optimizing safety and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The recent rapid and widespread adoption of the use of mesh, and mesh-based surgical kits for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery has occurred largely unchecked, and is now being subjected to critical analysis and re-evaluation.

METHODS

There have been multiple driving forces for this phenomenon, including aggressive marketing by surgical device manufacturing companies, contagious hype among pelvic surgeons and regulatory processes which facilitated relatively rapid marketing of new devices.

RESULTS

Patient-related factors such as indications for mesh use, expected risks and benefits relative to mesh implantation, and appropriately selected outcome measures have been slow to be defined.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript reviews the currently available literature in the use of grafts and mesh in POP surgery with a focus on identifying situations where graft use may be appropriate for an individual patient. It also identifies specific clinical situations where mesh use may not be recommended.