Informed surgical consent for a mesh/graft-augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Consensus of the 2nd IUGA Grafts Roundtable: optimizing safety and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery

Surgery for Apical Vaginal Prolapse after Hysterectomy: Transvaginal Mesh-Based Repair

Several transvaginal mesh products have been marketed to address vaginal vault prolapse. Although data are limited, prolapse recurrence rates and subjective outcome measures seem to be equivalent for vaginal mesh compared with native tissue apical prolapse repair, and the different vaginal meshes have not proven superior to one another. Given the known unique complications specific to vaginal mesh with equivalent outcomes for the apical vaginal prolapse, it is reasonable to reserve mesh use for specific high-risk cases, such as patients with large apical prolapse recurrence after native tissue repair who are not candidates for sacrocolpopexy.

No. 351-Transvaginal Mesh Procedures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

OBJECTIVE

This guideline reviews the evidence related to the risks and benefits of using transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repairs in order to update recommendations initially made in 2011.

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists, residents, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with pelvic organ prolapse.

TARGET POPULATION

Adult women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse considering surgery and those who have previously undergone transvaginal mesh procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

OPTIONS

The discussion relates to transvaginal mesh procedures compared with other surgical options for pelvic organ prolapse (mainly about vaginal native tissue repairs and minimally about other alternatives such as biological and absorbable vaginal mesh and abdominally placed surgical mesh).

OUTCOMES

The outcomes of interest are objective and subjective success rates and intraoperative and postoperative complications, such as adjacent organ injury (urinary, gastrointestinal), infection, hematoma/bleeding, vaginal mesh exposure, persistent pain, dyspareunia, de novo stress urinary incontinence, and reoperation.

EVIDENCE

PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Database, and EMBASE were searched using the key words pelvic organ prolapse/surgery*, prolapse/surgery*, surgical mesh, surgical mesh*/adverse effects, transvaginal mesh, and pelvic organ prolapse.

RESULTS

were restricted to English or French language and human research. Articles obtained through this search strategy were included until the end of June 2016. Pertinent new studies were added up to September 2016. Grey literature was not searched. Clinical practice guidelines and guidelines of specialty societies were reviewed. Systematic reviews were included when available. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included when evidence for the outcome of interest or in the target population was not available from systematic reviews. New studies not yet included in systematic reviews were also included. Only publications with study groups larger than 20 individuals were selected because this criterion was used in the largest meta-analysis referenced in this guideline. A total of 1470 studies were obtained; after selecting only applicable studies and excluding duplicates, 68 manuscripts were reviewed and included.

VALUES

The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed upon by the principal authors and members of the Urogynaecology Committee. The Board of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology framework. The Summary of Findings is available upon request.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND/OR COSTS

It is expected that this guideline will benefit women with pelvic organ prolapse by ensuring that health care providers are aware of outcomes related to transvaginal mesh procedures and steps in the management of related complications. This should guide patient-informed consent before such procedures are undertaken. The benefits clearly outweigh the potential harms or costs of implementation of this guideline, although no direct harms or costs are identified.

GUIDELINE UPDATE

Evidence will be reviewed 5 years after publication to decide whether all or part of the guideline should be updated. However, if important new evidence is published prior to the 5-year cycle, the review process may be accelerated for a more rapid update of some recommendations.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Native tissue repair for central compartment prolapse: a narrative review

Central descent due to a level 1 defect is a main component in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) reconstructive surgery, whether for symptomatic apical prolapse or for the prolapse repair of other compartments. A recent growth in the rate of native tissue repair procedures for POP, following the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings regarding the safety and efficacy of synthetic meshes, requires a re-evaluation of these procedures. The safety, efficacy, and determination of the optimal surgical approach should be the center of attention. Functional outcome measures and patient-centered results have lately gained importance and received focus. A comprehensive literature review was performed to evaluate objective and subjective outcomes of apical prolapse native tissue repair, with a special focus on studies reporting impact on patients' functional outcomes, quality of life, and satisfaction. We performed a MEDLINE search for articles in the English language by using the following key words: apical prolapse, sacrospinous ligament fixation, uterosacral ligament suspension, sacral colpopexy, McCall culdoplasty, iliococcygeus vaginal fixation, and functional outcomes. We reviewed references as well. Despite a prominent shortage of studies reporting standardized prospective outcomes for native tissue repair interventions, we noted a high rate of safety and efficacy, with a low complication rate for most procedures and low recurrence or re-treatment rates. The objective and subjective results of different procedures are reviewed. Functional outcomes of native tissue repair procedures have not been studied sufficiently, though existing data present those procedures as favorable and not categorically inferior to sacrocolpopexy. Apical compartment prolapse repair using native tissue is not a compromise. Functional outcomes of native tissue repair procedures are favorable, have a high rate of success, improve women's quality of life (QoL), and result in high rates of patient satisfaction. This subject requires further long-term, standardized prospective studies following the International Continence Society/International Urogynecologists Association guidelines for surgical outcomes report, with the focus on patient-centered functional outcomes.

Implications of the FDA statement on transvaginal placement of mesh: the aftermath

The release of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication on the use of transvaginal mesh (TVM) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has resulted in changes in the pelvic reconstruction community. This monograph reviews the implications of the FDA statements over the last 18-24 months. Recent findings show that there have been significant developments in the areas of regulatory mandates, media and medico-legal activity, and statements from surgical societies. In summary, well-publicized communications from the FDA and major medical organizations are defining a change in the use of TVM for POP.

Prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is a highly prevalent condition in the female population, which impairs the health-related quality of life of affected individuals. Despite the lack of robust evidence, selective modification of obstetric events or other risk factors could play a central role in the prevention of prolapse. While the value of pelvic floor muscle training as a preventive treatment remains uncertain, it has an essential role in the conservative management of prolapse. Surgical trends are currently changing due to the controversial issues surrounding the use of mesh and the increasing demand for uterine preservation. The evolution of laparoscopic and robotic surgery has increased the use of these techniques in pelvic floor surgery.

Changes in prolapse surgery trends relative to FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

In 2008 and 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released notifications regarding vaginal mesh. In describing prolapse surgery trends over time, we predicted vaginal mesh use would decrease and native tissue repairs would increase.

METHODS

Operative reports were reviewed for all prolapse repairs performed from 2008 to 2011 at our large regional hospital system. The number of each type of prolapse repair was determined per quarter year and expressed as a percentage of all repairs. Surgical trends were examined focusing on changes with respect to the release of two FDA notifications. We used linear regression to analyze surgical trends and chi-square for demographic comparisons.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred and eleven women underwent 1,385 prolapse procedures. Mean age was 64 ± 12, and 70 % had stage III prolapse. Vaginal mesh procedures declined over time (p = 0.001), comprising 27 % of repairs in early 2008, 15 % at the first FDA notification, 5 % by the second FDA notification, and 2 % at the end of 2011. The percentage of native tissue anterior/posterior repairs (p < 0.001) and apical suspensions (p = 0.007) increased, whereas colpocleisis remained constant (p = 0.475). Despite an overall decrease in open sacral colpopexies (p < 0.001), an initial increase was seen around the first FDA notification. We adopted laparoscopic/robotic techniques around this time, and the percentage of minimally invasive sacral colpopexies steadily increased thereafter (p < 0.001). All sacral colpopexies combined as a group declined over time (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment of prolapse continues to evolve. Over a 4-year period encompassing two FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh and the introduction of laparoscopic/robotic techniques, we performed fewer vaginal mesh procedures and more native tissue repairs and minimally invasive sacral colpopexies.