Long-term development of surgical outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with anterior and posterior mesh extension

Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

It is reported that up to 60% of women would prefer to spare their uterus during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery. A reliable hysteropexy technique is therefore crucial. We aimed to describe the safety profile and initial core patient-reported and clinical outcomes of the Pilsner modification of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS) in comparison with the laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy technique (standard laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy [sLSH]) previously used in our unit.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single tertiary referral urogynecological center. All patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy between 1 January 2015, and 31 January 2022 were included in the study. Follow-up clinical, patient-reported, and imaging outcomes at the 12-month follow-up time point are presented.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients were included. Of these, 49 (56.3%) and 38 (43.7%) underwent sLSH and PiMMS respectively. Low numbers of perioperative complications were found in both groups with no mesh-related complications reported following PiMMS up to 12 months postoperatively. There were no apical compartment failures in either group. There were 8 (17.0%) vs 1 (2.7%) anterior compartment failures (Ba ≤ -1) in the sLSH and PiMMS groups respectively (p = 0.07) at 12 months. At the 1-year follow-up, 42 (89.4%) patients reported a Patient Global Impression of Improvement score of ≤ 2 in the sLSH groups compared with 35 (94.6%) patients following PiMMS.

CONCLUSIONS

The PiMMS technique seems to have comparable safety profile and patient-reported outcomes with the sLSH technique. However, there is a trend toward reduced anterior compartment failures with this modification. The findings of this preliminary report need to be re-evaluated in a well-powered prospective study.

Pathological Insights on Polypropylene Mesh Complications From Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Case Series

Background The use of polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is a common treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Despite its widespread application, postoperative complications such as mesh pain and infection sometimes necessitate the removal of the mesh. However, it remains unclear in which cases mesh removal is warranted. Our research focused on the pathological changes at the sacral fixation point of the mesh. We sought to evaluate the pathological alterations of the sacral mesh removed through an innovative approach of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES). Methods This retrospective study included nine patients who underwent mesh removal surgery at the Yokosuka Urogynecology and Urology Clinic in 2023. Extraction surgery was performed using vNOTES with the GelPoint Access Platform (Applied Medical JAPAN HEADQUARTERS, Tokyo, Japan). Non-ablative Erbium YAG and Neodymium YAG lasers (RenovaLase, SP Dynamis; Fotona d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia) were utilized for persistent stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, vaginal erosion, and bleeding after surgery. Patients were categorized based on mesh fixation conditions, including unintended mesh overlap (Group I), excessive traction (Group II), and signs of mesh aging (Group III). This categorization helped to understand the distinct pathological outcomes associated with each condition. Results Pathological findings from the mesh removed via vNOTES varied significantly across the groups. In Group I, characteristic large vacuole formation and accumulation of atypical giant cells were observed, attributed to mesh overlap. Group II presented with vacuole formation, fiber degradation, and tissue destruction as a result of excessive mesh traction. In Group III, the aging of the mesh was marked by cracks in the surrounding tissues and granuloma formation. These detailed observations provide crucial insights into the underlying causes of mesh-related pain and other complications, highlighting the complexity of bodily responses to mesh implants. Conclusion This study demonstrated the effectiveness of vNOTES for polypropylene mesh removal in patients with post-LSC complications, resulting in significant pain reduction. Pathological analysis revealed that mesh-related issues stem from the surgical techniques, mesh properties, and long-term bodily reactions. These findings provide valuable insights for improving mesh design and POP treatment strategies. Despite the technical challenges, vNOTES is recommended for mesh removal in patients with pain. Additionally, the combination of UEL, VEL, targeted laser irradiation, AEL, and Nd:YAG laser treatments showed promising results in managing post-mesh removal complications such as stress urinary incontinence, vaginal erosion, bleeding, and fecal incontinence, offering hope for improved patient outcomes.

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates.

METHODS

The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients' satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants.

RESULTS

There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= -0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients' satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.