Anterior and middle pelvic organ prolapse repair using a six tension-free strap low weight transvaginal mesh: long-term retrospective monocentric study of 311 patients

Unilateral levator avulsion increases the risk of de novo stress urinary incontinence after cystocele repair

INTRODUCTION

Patients without concurrent baseline stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can develop de novo SUI after transvaginal mesh surgery (TVM) for cystocele repair. Surgeons should be aware of de novo SUI risk factors after TVM.

METHODS

A total of 1124 women who were underwent TVM surgeries were recruited and assessed for eligibility from January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2021. All data related to patients and surgeries was collected, which included general conditions, clinical examination, surgery records, and follow-up results. Patients were divided into three groups according to follow-up results and data were compared with each group. The relative risk (RR) of de novo SUI with levator avulsion was also calculated.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-six patients were included in this study. They were divided into no complication group (n = 249), de novo SUI group (n = 68), and other complications group (n = 19). It seemed elder or obese women had a higher risk of de novo SUI after TVM (p < 0.05). In de novo SUI group, incidence of levator avulsion before surgery were higher than the other two groups (p = 0.001). TVM can significantly change a prolapse to point Aa and Ba on POP-Q quantification system (p < 0.05). RR ratios of de novo SUI with unilateral avulsion group is 2.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-4.87), and 2.58 (95%CI 0.82-8.15) for bilateral group.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral levator avulsion, instead of bilateral levator avulsion, is a risk factor of de novo SUI after cystocele repair surgery.

Effect of anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair by modified transvaginal mesh surgery: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To explore clinical outcomes and complications of modified Transvaginal mesh (M-TVM) for advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse in 1 year follow-up.

METHODS

574 patients underwent TVM surgeries from 2019 to 2020 were collected and divided into TVM group and M-TVM group, all preoperative and postoperative data was obtained and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

285 women were involved eventually, including 181 in TVM group and 104 in M-TVM group. No significant difference of general conditions was found between these two groups. After long-term follow-up, patients in TVM group were more likely to suffer from pelvic pain than M-TVM group (P = 0.046). Meshes seemed much wider in M-TVM group (4.5 ± 0.69 cm) than in TVM group (3.0 ± 0.91 cm). No matter TVM or M-TVM, surgeries can significantly change point Aa and Ba when compared to preoperative data. Compared to TVM group, point C and D were significant changed in patients in M-TVM group after surgery (P < 0.001) CONCLUSION: M-TVM is a commendable procedure that can significant correct anterior prolapse with mesh extended wider, and also supply stable apical support at the same time.

Long-term outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the overall outcomes and complications of transvaginal mesh (TVM) placement for the management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with different meshes with a greater than 10-years of follow-up.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients with POP who underwent prolapse repair surgery with placement of transvaginal mesh (Prolift kit or self-cut Gynemesh) between January 2005 and December 2010. Baseline of patient characteristics were collected from the patients’ medical records. During follow-up, the anatomical outcomes were evaluated using the POP Quantification system, and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) was used to assess the response of a condition to therapy. Overall postoperative satisfaction was assessed by the following question: “What is your overall postoperative satisfaction, on a scale from 0 to 10?”. Relapse-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves.

Results

In total, 134 patients were included. With a median 12-year (range 10–15) follow-up, 52 patients (38.8%) underwent TVM surgery with Prolift, and Gynemesh was used 82 (61.2%). 91% patients felt that POP symptom improved based on the PGI-I scores, and most satisfied after operation. The recurrence rates of anterior, apical and posterior compartment prolapse were 5.2%, 5.2%, and 2.2%, respectively. No significant differences in POP recurrence, mesh-associated complications and urinary incontinence were noted between TVM surgery with Prolift versus Gynemesh.

Conclusions

Treatment of POP by TVM surgery exhibited long-term effectiveness with acceptable morbidity. The outcomes of the mesh kit were the same as those for self-cutmesh.

Update in Transvaginal Grafts: The Role of Lightweight Meshes, Biologics, and Hybrid Grafts in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery

Transvaginal mesh/grafts have been popularized over the past 20 years in an attempt to improve the longevity of traditional vaginal pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Several national bodies have concluded that the proposed benefits of mesh/graft implantation are outweighed by the significant increase in surgery complications related to these products. As a consequence mesh products for vaginal POP surgery have been withdrawn from use in many countries. This article is a narrative review of newer mesh and graft products including lightweight polypropylene mesh products, biological grafts, hybrid grafts, and tissue engineered grafts.

Short term complications in mesh augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not higher when compared with native tissue repair

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Accumulating evidence regarding the negative long-term consequences of transvaginal mesh-based procedures for pelvic organ prolapse has led to a sharp decline in mesh-based procedures. We aimed to evaluate the short-term complications of mesh-based procedures for carefully selected patients with pelvic organ prolapse after Food and Drug Administration warnings.

METHODS

A retrospective database review of the ACS NSQIP database was completed to examine 30-day complications including re-operation, prolonged length of stay, blood transfusion, surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, readmission and wound dehiscence in mesh-augmented and native tissue-based transvaginal procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.

RESULTS

A total of 36,234 patients were included in the analysis, with only 7.1% (2574 women) having mesh-augmented repair. Using a multivariable logistical regression analysis adjusting for confounders, we found that the primary composite outcome (re-operation, hospital stay, blood transfusion and surgical site infection) was less common in the mesh group compared with the native tissue repair group (adjusted OR 0.80, CI 0.67-0.95, p = 0.009). The secondary outcomes (urinary tract infection, re-admission and wound dehiscence) were not different between the group.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that in well-chosen patients, short-term complications are not increased when using transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Consensus statement of the Spanish Association Of Urology on the use of meshes in pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Recently the Food and Drug Administration has banned the use of transvaginal meshes for the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in the United States. This has caused a worldwide impact on the management of pelvic floor pathology by different specialists.

OBJECTIVE

To achieve a consensus on the use of meshes in the surgical treatment of POPs.

ACQUISITION OF DATA/EVIDENCE

A Committee of experts of the Spanish Association of Urology (AEU) was organized to review the literature and analyze the safety and efficacy of the use of polypropylene meshes in POP surgery.

RESULTS/EVIDENCE FROM THE LITERATURE

The evidence reflects that the use of meshes, compared to the use of native tissues, offers better efficacy at the expense of new complications and a higher rate of surgical reviews, these being minor in the hands of expert surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

POP surgery must be performed by experienced surgeons, properly trained and in referral centers. The patient should receive correct information about the different treatment options. Transvaginal meshes should only be indicated in complex cases and in recurrences after POP surgery.

AEU PROPOSAL

Creation of a clinical guideline and a national registry for long-term evaluation. Preparation of an Informed Consent available to all professionals and patients, as well as a specific training plan to achieve better training in complex pelvic floor surgery.

Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction with Six-Arm Mesh in Patients with Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A 1-Year Retrospective Study

Purpose

To investigate the effect of total pelvic floor reconstruction with a six-arm mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Patients and Methods

This is a retrospective observational cohort study. A total of 368 patients with pelvic organ prolapse underwent pelvic floor reconstruction surgery. Patients were categorized by the type of surgical mesh: 176 patients received a six-arm mesh and 192 patients received an anteroposterior approach mesh. The 1-year effect of the two groups was compared. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire (PFDI-20), Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitation (POP-Q) staging were used for evaluation. The incidence of complications was recorded. A cure standard was registered by a POP-Q score of grade I or below. A P value <0.05 indicates the difference is statistically significant.

Results

There was no recurrence documented in the patients; the cure rate was 100% in both groups. After surgery, the length of the vagina in the six-arm mesh group was longer than that of the control group at 6 months and 12 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The six-arm mesh group had lower PFDI-20 and CRADI-8 scores after surgery than those of the control group at 6 and 12 months, respectively (P < 0.05). Pelvic floor and rectal dysfunction symptom improvement were superior in the six-arm mesh group compared with the control group. After surgery, the Female Sexual Function Inventory (FSFI) score of the six-arm mesh group was superior to that of the control group at 6 and 12 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The incidence of complications in the six-arm mesh group was lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The total pelvic floor reconstruction using six-arm mesh has the same healing rate as anteroposterior approach mesh surgery, and it is better than traditional surgery in improving subjective symptoms and reducing postoperative complications.