1
|
Restriction of Surgical Options for Pelvic Floor Disorders. UROGYNECOLOGY (PHILADELPHIA, PA.) 2024; 30:467-475. [PMID: 38683201 DOI: 10.1097/spv.0000000000001507] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/01/2024]
Abstract
ABSTRACT The purpose of this document is to update the 2013 AUGS Position Statement based on subsequent decisions made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, published clinical data, and relevant society and national guidelines related to the use of surgical mesh. Urogynecologists specialize in treating pelvic floor disorders, such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and urinary incontinence, and have been actively involved and engaged in the national and international discussions and research on the use of surgical mesh in the treatment of POP and stress urinary incontinence. In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered manufacturers of transvaginally placed mesh kits for prolapse to stop selling and distributing their devices, stating that the data submitted did not provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Evidence supports the use of mesh in synthetic midurethral sling and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. The American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) remains opposed to any restrictions that ban currently available surgical options performed by qualified and credentialed surgeons on appropriately informed patients with pelvic floor disorders. The AUGS supports the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's recommendations that surgeons thoroughly inform patients seeking treatment for POP about the risks and benefits of all potential treatment options, including nonsurgical options, native tissue vaginal repairs, or abdominally placed mesh. There are certain clinical situations where surgeons may assert that the use and potential benefit of transvaginal mesh for prolapse outweighs the risk of other routes/types of surgery or of not using mesh. The AUGS recommends that surgeons utilize a shared decision-making model in the decision-making process regarding surgical options, including use of transvaginally placed mesh.
Collapse
|
2
|
Lu Z, Chen Y, Wang X, Li J, Yang C, Yuan F, Hua K, Hu C. Mesh Exposure and Prolapse Recurrence Following Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery for Sacrocolpopexy: Over 24 Months of Follow-up Data. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2022; 29:1317-1322. [PMID: 35964942 DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Revised: 07/30/2022] [Accepted: 08/07/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE To describe the results of mesh exposure and prolapse recurrence of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) for sacrocolpopexy after more than 24 months of postoperative follow-up. DESIGN A retrospective cohort study. SETTING A university hospital. PATIENTS Women with uterine prolapse who underwent vNOTES sacrocolpopexy with an ultralightweight polypropylene mesh between May 2018 and March 2020. INTERVENTIONS vNOTES sacrocolpopexy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Of 57 women, 55 women (96.5%) were included in the final analysis. The mean follow-up duration was 35.5 ± 7.6 (24-46) months. The total incidence of mesh exposure was 3 of 55 (5.5%). The total incidence of prolapse recurrence was 3 of 55 (5.5%). The changes in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System scores, including Aa, Ba, C, Ap, Bp, and total vaginal length values, showed significant improvement after surgery (p <.05 for all). CONCLUSION The study demonstrates that vNOTES sacrocolpopexy appears to be an effective option with low risks of mesh exposure and prolapse recurrence. Studies including more patients and longer follow-up periods should be performed before a clear conclusion can be reached.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhiying Lu
- Departments of Gynecology (Drs. Lu, Chen, Wang, Li, Yuan, Hua, and Hu), Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yisong Chen
- Departments of Gynecology (Drs. Lu, Chen, Wang, Li, Yuan, Hua, and Hu), Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaojuan Wang
- Departments of Gynecology (Drs. Lu, Chen, Wang, Li, Yuan, Hua, and Hu), Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Junwei Li
- Departments of Gynecology (Drs. Lu, Chen, Wang, Li, Yuan, Hua, and Hu), Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Chen Yang
- Departments of Anesthesiology (Dr. Yang), Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Feng Yuan
- Departments of Gynecology (Drs. Lu, Chen, Wang, Li, Yuan, Hua, and Hu), Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Keqin Hua
- Departments of Gynecology (Drs. Lu, Chen, Wang, Li, Yuan, Hua, and Hu), Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Changdong Hu
- Departments of Gynecology (Drs. Lu, Chen, Wang, Li, Yuan, Hua, and Hu), Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
| |
Collapse
|