Comparison of two trocar-guided trans-vaginal mesh systems for repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study

Long-term outcome (5-10 years) after non absorbable mesh insertion compared to partially absorbable mesh insertion for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair

Objective:

To evaluate long-term (5-10 years) outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical (MIS) kit insertion with Prolift^® (non-absorbable) mesh compared to the use of Prolift M^® (partially absorbable), for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair.

Study design:

In this retrospective study we compared women undergoing MIS kit Prolift^® insertion (n=90) vs. Prolift M^® insertion (n=79) for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair between 2006 and 2012 at our Institution. A number of 169 women fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study.

Results:

During the study period 128 women (76%) completed full follow-up; of them 58 (73%) following MIS kit Prolift^® insertion, and 70 (88%) following MIS kit ProliftM^® insertion. There was no significant difference between the Prolift® and Prolift M^® regarding parity (3.04 vs. 2.88, p=0.506), presence of hypertension (24.1% vs. 39.1%, p=0.088), diabetes mellitus (3.4% vs. 11.6%, p=0.109), or urinary stress incontinence (39.7% vs. 47.1%, p=0.475). All participants had been diagnosed with POP grade 3 or 4 before the procedure. No significant complications during the procedure or postoperative period were identified in the study groups. The follow-up period was at least five years in duration for both groups. Both groups were comparable according to questionnaires focused on function and satisfaction.

Conclusion:

Patients undergoing MIS kit Prolift^® and Prolift M^® insertion for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair had comparable early and late postoperative outcomes. No differences in patient's function and satisfaction between the two groups were identified. According to our findings, there is no superiority to either of the two studied mesh devices.

Partially absorbable mesh or native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to compare medium-term efficacy and safety of a partially absorbable mesh kit and native tissue repair in pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Women with primary POP stage ≥ II were randomized to transvaginal trocar-guided partially absorbable mesh (81 women) or native tissue repair (82 women). Primary outcome was overall anatomical success (POP < stage II) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were composite success, global improvement, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine (85%) of the women allocated to partially absorbable mesh underwent mesh surgery; 8 (10%) crossed over to native tissue repair and 4 women (5%) withdrew from the study. Eighty (98%) of the women allocated to native tissue repair underwent the assigned treatment and 2 (2%) withdrew. Twenty-four months later, 140 surgically treated women (89%) demonstrated an overall anatomical success of 39%; 45% (32 out of 71 women) for mesh, and 32% (22 out of 69) for native tissue repair (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.2). Composite success was 88 and 73% respectively (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.4). There was global improvement in 86% (48 out of 56 women) in the mesh group and in 77% (47 out of 60 women) in the native tissue group (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.3). Four women were diagnosed with mesh exposure at 2 years (6%).

CONCLUSION

At 24 months, no significant anatomical or composite benefit of partially absorbable mesh over native tissue repair could be demonstrated in women who had been surgically treated for primary POP.

Graft and Mesh Use in Transvaginal Prolapse Repair: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To update clinical practice guidelines on graft and mesh use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair based on systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Eligible studies, published through April 2015, were retrieved through ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases and bibliography searches.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We included studies of transvaginal prolapse repair that compared graft or mesh use with either native tissue repair or use of a different graft or mesh with anatomic and symptomatic outcomes with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Study data were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer. Studies were classified by vaginal compartment (anterior, posterior, apical, or multiple), graft type (biologic, synthetic absorbable, synthetic nonabsorbable), and outcome (anatomic, symptomatic, sexual function, mesh complications, and return to the operating room). We found 66 comparative studies reported in 70 articles, including 38 randomized trials; quality of the literature has improved over time, but some outcomes still show heterogeneity and limited power. In the anterior vaginal compartment, synthetic nonabsorbable mesh consistently showed improved anatomic and bulge symptom outcomes compared with native tissue repairs based on meta-analyses. Other subjective outcomes, including urinary incontinence or dyspareunia, generally did not differ. Biologic graft or synthetic absorbable mesh use did not provide an advantage in any compartment. Synthetic mesh use in the posterior or apical compartments did not improve success. Mesh erosion rates ranged from 1.4-19% at the anterior vaginal wall, but 3-36% when mesh was placed in multiple compartments. Operative mesh revision rates ranged from 3-8%.

CONCLUSION

Synthetic mesh augmentation of anterior wall prolapse repair improves anatomic outcomes and bulge symptoms compared with native tissue repair. Biologic grafts do not improve prolapse repair outcomes in any compartment. Mesh erosion occurred in up to 36% of patients, but reoperation rates were low.