Advances in surgical strategies for prolapse

Role of lateral suspension for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Delphi survey of expert panel

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Lateral suspension is an abdominal prosthetic surgical procedure used to correct apical prolapse. The procedure involves the placement of a T-shaped mesh on the anterior vaginal wall and on the isthmus or uterine cervix that is suspended laterally and posteriorly to the abdominal wall. Since its description in the late 90s, modifications of the technique have been described. So far, no consensus on the correct indications, safety, advantages, and disadvantages of this emerging procedure has been reached.

METHODS

A modified Delphi process was used to build consensus within a group of 21 international surgeons who are experts in the performance of laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS). The process was held with a first online round, where the experts expressed their level of agreement on 64 statements on indications, technical features, and other aspects of LLS. A subsequent re-discussion of statements where a threshold of agreement was not reached was held in presence.

RESULTS

The Delphi process allowed the identification of several aspects of LLS that represented areas of agreement by the experts. The experts agreed that LLS is a safe and effective technique to correct apical and anterior prolapse. The experts highlighted several key technical aspects of the procedure, including clinical indications and surgical steps.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi consensus provides valuable guidance and criteria for the use of LLS in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, based on expert opinion by large volume surgeons' experts in the performance of this innovative procedure.

Driving time drives the hospital choice: choice models for pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Italy

OBJECTIVE

The Italian healthcare jurisdiction promotes patient mobility, which is a major determinant of practice variation, thus being related to the equity of access to health services. We aimed to explore how travel times, waiting times, and other efficiency- and quality-related hospital attributes influenced the hospital choice of women needing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery in Tuscany, Italy.

METHODS

We obtained the study population from Hospital Discharge Records. We duplicated individual observations (n = 2533) for the number of Tuscan hospitals that provided more than 30 POP interventions from 2017 to 2019 (n = 22) and merged them with the hospitals' list. We generated the dichotomous variable "hospital choice" assuming the value one when hospitals where patients underwent surgery coincided with one of the 22 hospitals. We performed mixed logit models to explore between-hospital patient choice, gradually adding the women's features as interactions.

RESULTS

Patient choice was influenced by travel more than waiting times. A general preference for hospitals delivering higher volumes of interventions emerged. Interaction analyses showed that poorly educated women were less likely to choose distant hospitals and hospitals providing greater volumes of interventions compared to their counterpart. Women with multiple comorbidities more frequently chose hospitals with shorter average length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Travel times were the main determinants of hospital choice. Other quality- and efficiency-related hospital attributes influenced hospital choice as well. However, the effect depended on the socioeconomic and clinical background of women. Managers and policymakers should consider these findings to understand how women behave in choosing providers and thus mitigate equity gaps.

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion.

METHODS

We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis.

RESULTS

The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.

Regional practice variation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Tuscany, Italy: a retrospective cohort study on administrative health data

OBJECTIVES

To explore determinants of practice variation in both access, and quality and efficiency of surgical care for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective cohort study employing administrative health data from the Tuscany region, Italy.

PARTICIPANTS

All women over 40 years hospitalised for apical/multicompartmental POP reconstructive surgery (excluding anterior/posterior colporrhaphy without concomitant hysterectomy) from January 2017 to December 2019.

OUTCOMES

We first computed treatment rates just for women residing in Tuscany (n=2819) and calculated the Systematic Component of Variation (SCV) to explore variation in access to care among health districts. Then, using the full cohort (n=2959), we ran multilevel models for the average length of stay and reoperations, readmissions and complications, and computed the intraclass correlation coefficient to assess the individual and hospital determinants of efficiency and quality of care provided by hospitals.

RESULTS

The 5.4-fold variation between the lowest-rate (56/100 000 inhabitants) and the highest-rate (302/100 000) districts and the SCV over 10% confirmed high systematic variation in the access to care. Higher treatment rates were driven by greater provisions of robotic and/or laparoscopic interventions, which showed highly variable usage rates. Both individual and hospital factors influenced quality and efficiency provided by hospitals, but just low proportions of variation were explained by hospital and patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

We found high and systematic variation in the access to POP surgical care in Tuscany and in quality and efficiency provided by hospitals. Such a variation may be mainly explained by user and provider preferences, which should be further explored. Also, supply-side factors may be involved, suggesting that wider and more uniform dissemination of robotic/laparoscopic procedures may reduce variation.

Knowledge mapping and visualization analysis of pelvic organ prolapse repair with mesh from 2001 to 2021

Aims: In recent decades, extensive attention has been paid to the application of mesh to repair pelvic floor defects. However, a large body of related literature has not been system summarized. The purpose of this study is to summarize and visualize the literature on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair with mesh using bibliometrics. Methods: Medical literature regarding POP repair with mesh were searched and obtained in the Web of Science™ Core (WoSCC) database from 2001 to 2021. Microsoft Excel 2020, CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used to conduct the bibliometric and knowledge-map analysis. Results: In the past 20 years, a total of 2,550 articles and reviews have been published in 35 journals, and the published and cited results show a growing trend. Cosson M and International Urogynecology Journal were the authors and journals with the highest output, respectively. The United States, France and the United Kingdom are among the top three countries/organizations in relevant publications in worldwide. 584 key words in the literature are divided into 8 clusters, which are mainly related to prolapse type, risk factors, surgical methods, imaging, quality of life and bioengineering. Using clinical research and tissue engineering technology to reduce mesh complications is the current hot spot in this field. Conclusion: Reasonable application of mesh and avoiding mesh complications are still the most concerned topics in POP research. Although clinical research, surgical improvement, biological mesh and bioengineering technology have shown promising results, it is still urgent to carry out clinical transformation application research.

Abdominal ventral rectopexy with colectomy for obstructed defecation syndrome: An alternative option for selected patients

BACKGROUND

Abdominal ventral rectopexy (AVR) with colectomy is controversial in the treatment of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Literature data on this technique for ODS are very limited.

AIM

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of AVR with colectomy for selected patients with ODS.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent AVR with colectomy for ODS were identified prospectively from 2016 to 2017 in our department. Patient demographics, perioperative surgical results, and postoperative follow-up outcomes were collected and analyzed. Long-term follow-up was evaluated with standardized questionnaires. The severity of symptoms was assessed by the objective Wexner Constipation Score (WCS) and ODS Score. The quality of life was assessed by the Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score. Functional outcome was compared pre- and post-operatively for each patient. The primary outcomes were determined by the improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were operating time, postoperative length of stay, morbidity and mortality, improvement of pelvic floor structure, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Four patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery, and two patients underwent a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. The mean operating time for the robotic approach was 243 min (range 160–300 min), and the mean operating time for the laparoscopic approach was 230 min (range 220-240 min). The mean postoperative length of stay was 8.2 d (range 6-12 d). There was no conversion to open procedure and no postoperative mortality. No urinary retention, wound infection, prolonged ileus, pelvic infection and anastomosis leakage occurred. Six patients were followed up for 36 mo. The WCS, ODS, and Patients Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score improved significantly postoperatively (P < 0.05). The WCS and ODS scores showed the best remission and stabilization at 6 to 12 mo after surgery. There was no recurrence or novel constipation after surgery. None of the patients used laxative medication.

CONCLUSION

Robotic and laparoscopic-assisted ventral rectopexy with colectomy is a safe and effective procedure for selected patients with ODS. However, comprehensive preoperative evaluation and careful patient selection are essential.