Apical Prolapse: Is There a Best Approach?

Abdominal Sacrohysteropexy using Proline mesh versus Mersilene tape in apical prolapse: A randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

uterine preservation is increasingly a common demand in surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. Using Proline mesh in surgical repair of prolapse may have negative drawbacks.

OBJECTIVE

compare between using Polyproline mesh and Mersilene tape in abdominal Sacrohysteropexy repairing apical prolapse stage ӀӀ or more.

STUDY DESIGN

This RCT study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Menoufia and Ain Shams university hospitals, Egypt). Eligible population included women planned Sacrohysteropexy for uterine prolapse ≥ stage 2 assigned to two groups: Mesh group (n = 38), underwent Sacrohysteropexy with polyproline mesh, and Tape group (n = 38), underwent Sacrohysteropexy using Mersilene tape.

RESULTS

High statistically significant difference between TAPE group and MESH group concerning hysteropexy time was 50.4 min in TAPE group vs 90.6 min in MESH group (p < 0.001), need for post operative analgesia was14 in TAPE group vs 27 in MESH group (p < 0.005). The mean hospital stay was 2.8 days in TAPE group vs 5.2days in MESH group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Using Mersilene tape in Sacrohysteropexy is a safe alternative to Polyproline Mesh with comparable efficacy with less complications. Tape is easier as it needs less dissection area for sacral fixation so less injury incidence.

The effect of reconstructive vaginal surgery on quality of life and sexual functions in postmenopausal women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse in intermediate-term follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To compare sexual function and quality of life in women who underwent McCall culdoplasty versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted in our urogyanecology clinic between July 2015 and June 2019. We included sexually active postmenopausal women who had undergone either McCall culdoplasty (n:80 patients) or sacrospinous ligament fixation (n:38 patients) procedure for threatened POP. Patients in both groups were matched according to age and body mass index. Sexual function between both groups was evaluated with the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function 12 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and quality of life with the prolapse quality of life (PQOL) PROMs.

RESULTS

Emotional domain was low in the McCall culdoplasty group (21.4 ± 10.1 vs. 30.8 ± 15.2; p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in other P-QOL domains. Pain during intercourse was more in the sacrospinous ligament fixation group (2.9 ± 1.6 vs. 1.3 ± 1.1; p = 0.04). The mean operation time in the McCall culdoplasty group was shorter than the sacrospinous ligament fixation group (p = 0.03). There was no difference between the two surgical procedures performed in terms of intraoperative blood loss and hospital stay. The prevalence of recurrence in the McCall culdoplasty group was 6.2%, and that of sacrospinous ligament fixation was 5% (p = 0.75) in one year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that McCall culdoplasty has a more positive effect on QOL and sexuality than sacrospinous ligament fixation in appropriately selected patients. McCall culdoplasty could be considered as a good option in the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse in elderly patients.

Is performing sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy and McCall's culdoplasty for advanced uterovaginal prolapse preferable over McCall's culdoplasty alone?

Purpose of study

Advanced uterovaginal prolapse can significantly affect the quality of life in women and usually requires surgical management. McCall's culdoplasty (M) or sacrospinous fixation (SSF) are done at the time of vaginal hysterectomy with pelvic floor repair (VHPFR) to reduce recurrence, but recurrence rates of 15% and 33% have been reported with these procedures respectively. We hypothesize that combining VH-PFR with both McCall's culdoplasty and sacrospinous fixation (VH-PFR-M-SSF) may decrease recurrence rates compared to VH-PFR-M without significantly affecting other perioperative outcomes.

Methods

All patients with advanced uterovaginal prolapse and willing for VH-PFR at our institute from January 2015 to March 2018 were included after informed consent, except for medically unfit women and those preferring alternative management. We conducted a case control study comparing VH-PFR-M and VH-PFR-M-SSF with a follow-up period of 24 months. Qualitative and quantitative data were statistically analysed and Odds ratio and 95% Confidence interval was calculated. Kaplan Meier Curve was drawn and Log Rank test was used to compare recurrence.

Results

Out of 174 patients who underwent surgery in the study period, 131 patients (75.28%) underwent VH-PFR-M and 43 patients (24.71%) underwent VH-PFR-M-SSF. Both groups were comparable for age, body mass index, parity, postmenopausal status, comorbidities and aggravating factors. Patients with higher stage of prolapse were more in group 2 (p < 0.001). There were no intraoperative complications or postoperative surgical interventions in either group. The duration of surgery was not significantly different. Change in haematocrit was more in group 2 but no patient required blood transfusion. There was no statistically significant difference in recurrence rates between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

The procedure (VH PFR M-SSF) is safe and affordable with good results in Stage 3 with advanced bulge and stage 4 prolapse.