Porcine dermis compared with polypropylene mesh for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Apical vaginal prolapse is the descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available, but there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 14 March 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 RCTs (6705 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodology, and inconsistency. Vaginal procedures compared to sacral colpopexy for vault prolapse (seven RCTs, n=613; six months to f four-year review) Awareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.21, 4 RCTs, n = 346, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 8% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 18% (10% to 32%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. Surgery for recurrent prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.04; 6 RCTs, n = 497, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 6% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, 14% (8% to 25%) are likely to require it after vaginal procedures. Prolapse on examination is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.65; 5 RCTs, n = 422; I2 = 24%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 18% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, between 23% and 47% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures. Other outcomes: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of vaginal procedures on dyspareunia was uncertain (RR 3.44, 95% CI 0.61 to 19.53; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (six RCTS, 554 women, one to seven year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.10 to 9.98; 2 RCTs, n = 200, very low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.54; 5 RCTs, n = 403; I2 = 9%, low-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- there was little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 2 RCTs n = 230; I2 = 9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysteropexy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (two RCTs, n = 388, 1-four-year review) Awareness of prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.55 95% CI 0.21 to 1.44; 1 RCT n = 257, low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.44; 2 RCTs, n = 345; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 2 RCTs n =367; I2 =9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to vaginal hysteropexy (four RCTs, n = 620, 6 months to five-year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.0 95% CI 0.44 to 2.24; 2 RCTs, n = 365, I2 = 0% moderate-quality certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.60; 3 RCTs, n = 443; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.61; 2 RCTs n =361; I2 =74%, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes: Total vaginal length (TVL) was shorter after vaginal hysterectomy (mean difference (MD) 0.89cm 95% CI 0.49 to 1.28cm shorter; 3 RCTs, n=413, low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between the groups in terms of operating time, dyspareunia and stress urinary incontinence. Other analyses There were no differences identified for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (4 RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (3 RCTs), pectopexy versus other apical suspensions (5 RCTs), continuous versus interrupted sutures at sacral colpopexy (2 RCTs), absorbable versus permanent sutures at apical suspensions (5 RCTs) or different routes of sacral colpopexy. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is associated with shorter admission time than open approach (3 RCTs) and quicker operating time than robotic approach (3 RCTs). Transvaginal mesh does not confer any advantage over native tissue repair, however is associated with a 17.5% rate of mesh exposure (7 RCTs).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, and postoperative SUI than a variety of vaginal interventions. The limited evidence does not support the use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse. There were no differences in primary outcomes for different routes of sacral colpopexy. However, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter operating time than robotic approach, and shorter admission than open approach. There were no significant differences between vaginal hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse nor between vaginal hysteropexy and abdominal hysteropexy/cervicopexy. There were no differences detected between absorbable and non absorbable sutures however, the certainty of evidence for mesh exposure and dyspareunia was low.

Polypropylene Pelvic Mesh: What Went Wrong and What Will Be of the Future?

Background: Polypropylene (PP) pelvic mesh is a synthetic mesh made of PP polymer used to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Its use has become highly controversial due to reports of serious complications. This research critically reviews the current management options for POP and PP mesh as a viable clinical application for the treatment of POP. The safety and suitability of PP material were rigorously studied and critically evaluated, with consideration to the mechanical and chemical properties of PP. We proposed the ideal properties of the ‘perfect’ synthetic pelvic mesh with emerging advanced materials. Methods: We performed a literature review using PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, including the relevant keywords: pelvic organ prolapse (POP), polypropylene mesh, synthetic mesh, and mesh complications. Results: The results of this review found that although PP is nontoxic, its physical properties demonstrate a significant mismatch between its viscoelastic properties compared to the surrounding tissue, which is a likely cause of complications. In addition, a lack of integration of PP mesh into surrounding tissue over longer periods of follow up is another risk factor for irreversible complications. Conclusions: PP mesh has caused a rise in reports of complications involving chronic pain and mesh exposure. This is due to the mechanical and physicochemical properties of PP mesh. As a result, PP mesh for the treatment of POP has been banned in multiple countries, currently with no alternative available. We propose the development of a pelvic mesh using advanced materials including emerging graphene-based nanocomposite materials.

Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture in Apical Prolapse Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore how permanent compared with absorbable suture affects anatomic success in native tissue vaginal suspension (uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension) and sacrocolpopexy with mesh.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through March 29, 2022.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Our population included women undergoing apical prolapse surgery (uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension and abdominal sacrocolpopexy). Our intervention was permanent suture for apical prolapse surgery, and our comparator was absorbable suture. We determined a single anatomic success proportion per study. Adverse events collected included suture and mesh exposure, surgery for suture and mesh complication, dyspareunia, and granulation tissue. Abstracts were doubly screened, full-text articles were doubly screened, and accepted articles were doubly extracted. Quality of studies was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. In single-arm studies using either permanent or absorbable suture, random effects meta-analyses of pooled proportions were used to assess anatomic success. In comparative studies investigating both suture types, random effects meta-analyses of pooled risk ratios were used.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Of 4,658 abstracts screened, 398 full-text articles were assessed and 63 studies were included (24 vaginal suspension [13 uterosacral ligament suspension and 11 sacrospinous ligament suspension] and 39 sacrocolpopexy). At 2-year follow-up, there was no difference in permanent compared with absorbable suture in uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension (proportional anatomic success rate 88% [95% CI 0.81-0.93] vs 88% [95% CI 0.82-0.92]). Similarly, at 18-month follow-up, there was no difference in permanent compared with absorbable suture in sacrocolpopexy (proportional anatomic success rate 92% [95% CI 0.88-0.95] vs 96% [95% CI 0.92-0.99]). On meta-analysis, there was no difference in relative risk (RR) of success for permanent compared with absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.33) or sacrocolpopexy (RR 1.00, 95% CI0.98-1.03).

CONCLUSION

Success rates were similarly high for absorbable and permanent suture after uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament suspension, and sacrocolpopexy, with medium-term follow-up.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021265848.

Urinary basement membrane graft-augmented sacrospinous ligament suspension: a description of technique and short-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Since the discontinuation of manufacture and distribution of surgical mesh for transvaginal prolapse repair, the use of biologic grafts for transvaginal apical suspension has gained renewed attention. However, there is no FDA-approved device and minimal published data describing such an approach. The objective of this video is to describe a technique and to present limited short-term outcomes utilizing a porcine urinary basement membrane (UBM) graft to perform an augmented bilateral sacrospinous ligament suspension (SSLS).

METHODS

We present a step-by-step overview of our technique to perform an augmented SSLS with off-label utilization of a 7- × 10-cm porcine UBM graft. We demonstrate graft shaping and application during transvaginal repair along with data describing perioperative outcomes associated with a series of 25 cases performed at our institution using the technique described.

RESULTS

No perioperative complications related to the graft were observed in our cohort. The most common postoperative concern was buttock pain, which spontaneously resolved within 6 months. Two individuals (8%) developed recurrent prolapse within 1 year of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The UBM-augmented apical suspension allows for reinforced transvaginal prolapse repair without the use of permanent mesh material. We have observed good clinical success in our application of this technique, but dedicated research assessing long-term outcomes compared with a native tissue repair is needed.

Sacrocolpopexy using autologous rectus fascia: Cohort study of long-term outcomes and complications

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate objective and subjective outcomes of patients who underwent sacrocolpopexy using autologous rectus fascia to provide more data regarding non-mesh alternatives in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

DESIGN

Ambispective cohort study with retrospective and prospective data.

SETTING

A single academic medical centre.

POPULATION

Women who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy using autologous rectus fascia between January 2010 and December 2019.

METHODS

Patients were recruited for a follow-up visit, including completing the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Composite failure, anatomic failure, symptomatic failure and retreatment.

RESULTS

During the study period, 132 women underwent sacrocolpopexy using autologous rectus fascia. The median follow-up time was 2.2 years. Survival analysis showed that composite failure was 0.8% (95% CI 0.1%-5.9%) at 12 months, 3.5% (95% CI 1.1%-10.7%) at 2 years, 13.2% (95% CI 7.0%-24.3%) at 3 years and 28.3% (95% CI 17.0%-44.8%) at 5 years. The anatomic failure rate was 0% at 12 months, 1.4% (95% CI 0.2%-9.2%) at 2 years, 3.1% (95% CI 0.8%-12.0%) at 3 years and 6.8% (95% CI 2.0%-22.0%) at 5 years. The symptomatic failure rate was 0% at 12 months, 1.3% (95% CI 0.2%-9.0%) at 2 years, 2.9% (95% CI 0.7%-11.3%) at 3 years and 13.1% (95% CI 5.3%-30.3%) at 5 years. The retreatment rate was 0.8% (95% CI 0.1%-5.9%) at 12 months and 2 years, 9.4% (95% CI 4.2%-20.3%) at 3 years and 13.0% (95% CI 6.0%-27.2%) at 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Autologous rectus fascia sacrocolpopexy may be considered a safe and effective alternative for patients who wish to avoid synthetic mesh.

Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs

BACKGROUND

New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon.

SETTING

UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year).

RESULTS

Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach.

FUTURE WORK

Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Autologous Fascia Lata for Combined Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy

ABSTRACT

We present a case series and video of our technique using autologous fascia lata for combined sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy, with or without resection.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy comparing polypropylene mesh with polyvinylidene fluoride mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: Technique description and long term outcomes

AIM

Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) and compare the long-term outcomes and complication rates of polypropelene (PP) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), following up within a minimum of 12 months.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using patients who underwent LSCP for POP involving either PP or PVDF mesh between January 2011 and January 2018.

RESULTS

Our study focused on 172 women who underwent LSCP with mesh between January 2011 and January 2018. All procedures were successfully completed laparoscopically, and patients' baseline characteristics were not statistically different in the two groups. Between January 2011 and December 2014, we performed 82 cases of LSC, mainly using PP mesh. Over the last 5 years, since January 2015, we have used PVDF mesh for POP.

CONCLUSIONS

LSCP using PVDF mesh was found to provide excellent anatomical and functional outcomes after a median follow-up duration of 41 months, compared with the PP group, which had a median follow-up duration of 54 months. Mesh infection and erosion rates in the PP group were significantly higher than those in the PVDF group. Additionally, rates of vaginal pain and discomfort were significantly lower in the PVDF group when compared with the PP group.

Pelvic organ prolapse management

Pelvic organ prolapse describes the loss of support and subsequent descent of pelvic organs into the vagina. It is common, affecting up to 50% of parous women, and can be accompanied by a number of burdening symptoms. Prolapse has been thrown into the spotlight secondary to mesh-related complications. There are a number of effective treatment options to consider when managing pelvic organ prolapse and most do not require mesh. Patients' choice, comorbidities and likelihood of treatment success should be considered when making decisions about their care. Vaginal mesh surgery is currently on hold in the UK and even prior to this there has been a reduction both in the number of all prolapse surgeries and the number of women seeking surgery to manage their symptoms. This article reviews the current evidence for the management of pelvic organ prolapse, providing an update on the current state of mesh in prolapse surgery and summarises the key evidence points derived from the literature.

Pelvic Organ Prolapse: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 214

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common, benign condition in women. For many women it can cause vaginal bulge and pressure, voiding dysfunction, defecatory dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction, which may adversely affect quality of life. Women in the United States have a 13% lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for POP (). Although POP can occur in younger women, the peak incidence of POP symptoms is in women aged 70-79 years (). Given the aging population in the United States, it is anticipated that by 2050 the number of women experiencing POP will increase by approximately 50% (). The purpose of this joint document of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Urogynecologic Society is to review information on the current understanding of POP in women and to outline guidelines for diagnosis and management that are consistent with the best available scientific evidence.

Joint Report on Terminology for Surgical Procedures to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are common, but standardization of surgical terms is needed to improve the quality of investigation and clinical care around these procedures. The American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecologic Association convened a joint writing group consisting of 5 designees from each society to standardize terminology around common surgical terms in POP repair including the following: sacrocolpopexy (including sacral colpoperineopexy), sacrocervicopexy, uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament fixation, iliococcygeus fixation, uterine preservation prolapse procedures or hysteropexy (including sacrohysteropexy, uterosacral hysteropexy, sacrospinous hysteropexy, anterior abdominal wall hysteropexy, Manchester procedure), anterior prolapse procedures (including anterior vaginal repair, anterior vaginal repair with graft, and paravaginal repair), posterior prolapse procedures (including posterior vaginal repair, posterior vaginal repair with graft, levator plication, and perineal repair), and obliterative prolapse repairs (including colpocleisis with hysterectomy, colpocleisis without hysterectomy, and colpocleisis of the vaginal vault). Each of these terms is clearly defined in this document including the required steps of the procedure, surgical variations, and recommendations for procedural terminology.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive literature review on current practice

Sacrocolpopexy is considered the preferred treatment for vaginal vault. However, numerous technical variants are being practiced. We aimed to summarize the recent literature in relation to technical aspects of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). We focused on surgical technique, mesh type, concomitant surgeries, and training aspects. We performed 2 independent literature searches in Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane library, and Embase electronic databases including the keywords: 'sacrocolpopexy', 'sacral colpopexy' and 'promontofixation'. Full text English-language studies of human patients, who underwent LSC, published from January 1, 2008 to February 26, 2019, were included. Levels of evidence using the modified Oxford grading system were assessed in order to establish a report of the available literature of highest level of evidence. Initially, 953 articles were identified. After excluding duplicates and abstracts screening, 35 articles were included. Vaginal fixation of the mesh can be performed with barbed or non-barbed (level 1), absorbable or non-absorbable sutures (level 2). Fixation of the mesh to the promontory can be performed with non-absorbable sutures or non-absorbable tackers (level 2). The current literature supports using type 1 mesh (level 2). Ventral mesh rectopexy can safely be performed with LSC while concurrent posterior repair has no additional benefit (level 2). There is no consensus regarding the preferred type of hysterectomy or the benefit of an additional anti urinary incontinence procedure. A structured learning program, as well as the number of procedures needed in order to be qualified for performing LSC is yet to be established. There are numerous variants for performing LSC. For many of its technical aspects there is little consensus.

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy With a Small Intestine Submucosa Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

Transvaginal mesh (TVM) results in a greater anatomic cure but more complications. We aimed to compare laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) plus colporrhaphy with the small intestine submucosa (SIS) graft versus TVM for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

Patients with advanced POP who underwent LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft or TVM at a center between September 2015 and November 2016 were studied. Anatomical outcomes were evaluated using POP quantification. Functional outcomes related to POP and sexual life were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Data regarding surgical procedures and patient demographic variables were recorded. Chi-square and Student t -tests were used for 2 independent samples.

Results

A total of 76 patients were enrolled in this study with 26 patients in the LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft group (group A) and 50 patients with TVM group (group B). All patients in both groups demonstrated significant improvement in anatomical outcomes (P<0.05) after surgery. PFDI-20 scores were significantly improved 12 months after operation in both groups (P<0.001). PISQ-12 scores were significantly improved in patients after surgery, especially patients in group A (P<0.001). Mesh exposure occurred in both groups as follows: 8 patients (30.7%) in group A and 5 patients (10%) in group B.

Conclusions

Even though both surgeries showed excellent results for subjective and objective outcomes, the use of an SIS graft might increase the exposure of polypropylene mesh. We do not recommend LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft for advanced multiple-compartments prolapse.

Definitions of apical vaginal support loss: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify and summarize definitions of apical support loss utilized for inclusion, success, and failure in surgical trials for treatment of apical vaginal prolapse.

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition affecting more than 3 million women in the US, and the prevalence is increasing. Prolapse may occur in the anterior compartment, posterior compartment or at the apex. Apical support is considered paramount to overall female pelvic organ support, yet apical support loss is often underrecognized and there are no guidelines for when an apical support procedure should be performed or incorporated into a procedure designed to address prolapse.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic literature search was performed in 8 search engines: PubMed 1946-, Embase 1947-, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Review Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, and FirstSearch Proceedings, using key words for apical pelvic organ prolapse and apical suspension procedures through April 2016. Searches were limited to human beings using human filters and articles published in English. Study authors (M.R.L.M., J.L.L.) independently reviewed publications for inclusion based on predefined variables. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they satisfied any of the following criteria: (1) apical support loss was an inclusion criterion in the original study, (2) apical support loss was a surgical indication, or (3) an apical support procedure was performed as part of the primary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 4469 publications were identified. After review, 35 articles were included in the analysis. Prolapse-related inclusion criteria were: (1) apical prolapse (n = 20, 57.1%); (2) overall prolapse (n = 8, 22.8%); or (3) both (n = 6, 17.1%). Definitions of apical prolapse (relative to the hymen) included: (1) apical prolapse >-1 cm (n = 13, 50.0%); (2) apical prolapse >+1 cm (n = 7, 26.9%); (3) apical prolapse >50% of total vaginal length (-[total vaginal length/2]) (n = 4, 15.4%); and (4) cervix/apex >0 cm (n = 2, 7.7%). Sixteen of the 35 studies (45.7%) required the presence of symptoms for inclusion. A measurement of the apical compartment (relative to the hymen) was used as a measure of surgical success or failure in 17 (48.6%) studies. Definitions for surgical success included: (1) prolapse stage >2 in each compartment (n = 5, 29.4%); (2) prolapse >-[total vaginal length/2] (n = 2, 11.8%); (3) apical support >-[total vaginal length/3] (n = 1, 5.9%); (4) absence of prolapse beyond the hymen (n = 1, 5.9%); and (5) point C at ≥-5 cm (n = 2, 11.8%). Surgical failure was defined as: (1) apical prolapse ≥0 cm (n = 2, 11.8%); (2) apical prolapse ≥-1 cm (n = 2, 11.8%); (3) apical prolapse >-[total vaginal length/2] (n = 3, 17.6%); and (4) recurrent apical prolapse surgery (n = 1, 5.9%). Ten (28.6%) of the 35 studies also included symptomatic outcomes in the definition of success or failure.

CONCLUSION

Among randomized, controlled surgical trials designed to address apical vaginal support loss, definitions of clinically significant apical prolapse for study inclusion and surgical success or failure are either highly variable or absent. These findings provide limited evidence of consensus and little insight into current expert opinion.

Effect of mesh width on apical support after sacrocolpopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We evaluated the effect of polypropylene mesh width on vaginal apical support, mesh elongation, and mesh tensile strength for abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

METHODS

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy was performed on ten cadavers using pieces of polypropylene mesh of width 1, 2, and 3 cm. Weights of 1, 2, 3, and 4 kg were sequentially applied to the vagina. The total distance moved by the vaginal apex, and the amount of stretch of the intervening mesh segment between the sacrum and the vagina were recorded for each width. The failure strengths of additional single and double layer sets of each width were also tested using a tensiometer. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance using a random effects model.

RESULTS

The mean (standard error of the mean) maximum distance moved by the vaginal apex was 4.63 cm (0.37 cm) for the 1 cm mesh compared to 3.67 cm (0.26 cm) and 2.73 cm (0.14 cm) for the 2 and 3 cm meshes, respectively (P < 0.0001). The 1 cm width ruptured during testing in four of the ten cadavers. The results were similar for mesh elongation, with the 1 cm mesh stretching the most and the 3 cm mesh stretching the least. Mesh failure loads for double-layer mesh were 52.9 N (2.5 N), 124.4 N (2.7 N), and 201.2 N (4.5 N) for the 1, 2, and 3 cm meshes, respectively, and were higher than the failure loads for single mesh (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a cadaver model, increasing mesh width is associated with better vaginal apical support, less mesh elongation, and higher failure loads. Mesh widths of 2-3 cm provide sufficient repair strength for sacrocolpopexy.

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Apical vaginal prolapse is a descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available and there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched July 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched January 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 RCTs (3414 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence quality ranged from low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodological reporting and inconsistency. Vaginal procedures versus sacral colpopexy (six RCTs, n = 583; one to four-year review). Awareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.21, 3 RCTs, n = 277, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). If 7% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 14% (7% to 27%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. Repeat surgery for prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.32; 4 RCTs, n = 383, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 4% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, between 5% and 18% would require it after vaginal procedures.We found no conclusive evidence that vaginal procedures increaserepeat surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) (RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.86; 4 RCTs, n = 395; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). If 3% of women require repeat surgery for SUI after sacral colpopexy, between 2% and 16% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures. Recurrent prolapse is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.70; 4 RCTs, n = 390; I² = 41%, moderate-quality evidence). If 23% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, about 41% (31% to 63%) are likely to do so after vaginal procedures.The effect of vaginal procedures on bladder injury was uncertain (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.36; 5 RCTs, n = 511; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). SUI was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Dyspareunia was also more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.50; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I² = 43%, low-quality evidence). Vaginal surgery with mesh versus without mesh (6 RCTs, n = 598, 1-3 year review). Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.08 95% CI 0.35 to 3.30 1 RCT n = 54, low quality evidence). The confidence interval was wide suggesting that if 18% of women are aware of prolapse after surgery without mesh, between 6% and 59% will be aware of prolapse after surgery with mesh. Repeat surgery for prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.60; 5 RCTs, n = 497; I² = 9%, low-quality evidence). If 4% of women require repeat surgery for prolapse after surgery without mesh, 1% to 7% are likely to do so after surgery with mesh.We found no conclusive evidence that surgery with mesh increases repeat surgery for SUI (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 27.94; 2 RCTs, n = 220; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). The confidence interval was wide suggesting that if 2% of women require repeat surgery for SUI after vaginal colpopexy without mesh, 2% to 53% are likely to do so after surgery with mesh.We found no clear evidence that surgery with mesh decreases recurrent prolapse (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.40; 3 RCTs n = 269; I² = 91%, low-quality evidence). The confidence interval was very wide and there was serious inconsistency between the studies. Other outcomes There is probably little or no difference between the groups in rates of SUI (de novo) (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.99; 4 RCTs, n = 295; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) or dyspareunia (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.66; 5 RCTs, n = 501; I² = 0% moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is any difference for bladder injury (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 9.89; 4 RCTs, n = 445; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy versus alternatives for uterine prolapse (six studies, n = 667)No clear conclusions could be reached from the available evidence, though one RCT found that awareness of prolapse was less likely after hysterectomy than after abdominal sacrohysteropexy (RR 0.38, 955 CI 0.15 to 0.98, n = 84, moderate-quality evidence).Other comparisonsThere was no evidence of a difference for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (two RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (two RCTs), different routes for sacral colpopexy (four RCTs), or between sacral colpopexy with and without continence surgery (four RCTs).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, postoperative SUI and dyspareunia than a variety of vaginal interventions.The limited evidence does not support use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse. Most of the evaluated transvaginal meshes are no longer available and new lighter meshes currently lack evidence of safetyThe evidence was inconclusive when comparing access routes for sacral colpopexy.No clear conclusion can be reached from the available data comparing uterine preserving surgery versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.

Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based review and recommendations

Sacrocolpopexy is considered a reference operation for pelvic organ prolapse repair but its indications and technical aspects are not standardized. A faculty of urogynecology surgeons critically evaluated the peer-reviewed literature published until September 2015 aiming to produce evidence-based recommendations. PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English language. The modified Oxford data grading system was used to access quality of evidence and grade recommendations. The Delphi process was implemented when no data was available. Thirteen randomized, controlled trials were identified, that provided levels 1 to 3 of evidence on various aspects of sacrocolpopexy. Sacrocolpopexy is the preferred procedure for vaginal apical prolapse (Grade A), monofilament polypropylene mesh is the graft of choice and the laparoscopic approach is the preferred technique (Grade B). Grade B recommendation supports the performance of concomitant procedures at the time of sacrocolpopexy. Grade C recommendation suggests either permanent or delayed sutures for securing the mesh to the vagina, permanent tackers or sutures for securing the mesh to the sacral promontory and closing the peritoneum over the mesh. A Delphi process Grade C recommendation supports proceeding with sacrocolpopexy after uncomplicated, intraoperative bladder or small bowel injuries. There is insufficient or conflicting data on hysterectomy (total or subtotal) or uterus preservation during sacrocolpopexy (Grade D). Sacrocolpopexy remains an excellent option for vaginal apical prolapse repair. The issue of uterine preservation or excision during the procedure requires further clarification. Variations exist in the performance of most technical aspects of the procedure.

Genital hiatus size is associated with and predictive of apical vaginal support loss

BACKGROUND

Recognition and assessment of apical vaginal support defects remains a significant challenge in the evaluation and management of prolapse. There are several reasons that this is likely: (1) Although the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification examination is the standard prolapse staging system used in the Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery field for reporting outcomes, this assessment is not used commonly in clinical care outside the subspecialty; (2) no clinically useful and accepted definition of apical support loss exists, and (3) no consensus or guidelines address the degree of apical support loss at which an apical support procedure should be performed routinely.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify a simple screening measure for significant loss of apical vaginal support.

STUDY DESIGN

This was an analysis of women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification stage 0-IV prolapse. Women with total vaginal length of ≥7 cm were included to define a population with "normal" vaginal length. Univariable and linear regression analyses were used to identify Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification points that were associated with 3 definitions of apical support loss: the International Consultation on Incontinence, the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network revised eCARE, and a Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification point C cut-point developed by Dietz et al. Linear and logistic regression models were created to assess predictors of overall apical support loss according to these definitions. Receiver operator characteristic curves were generated to determine test characteristics of the predictor variables and the areas under the curves were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 469 women, 453 women met the inclusion criterion. The median Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification stage was III, and the median leading edge of prolapse was +2 cm (range, -3 to 12 cm). By stage of prolapse (0-IV), mean genital hiatus size (genital hiatus; mid urethra to posterior fourchette) increased: 2.0 ± 0.5, 3.0 ± 0.5, 4.0 ± 1.0, 5.0 ± 1.0, and 6.5 ± 1.5 cm, respectively (P < .01). Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification points B anterior, B posterior, and genital hiatus had moderate-to-strong associations with overall apical support loss and all definitions of apical support loss. Linear regression models that predict overall apical support loss and logistic regression models predict apical support loss as defined by International Continence Society, eCARE, and the point C; cut-point definitions were fit with points B anterior, B posterior, and genital hiatus; these 3 points explained more than one-half of the model variance. Receiver operator characteristic analysis for all definitions of apical support loss found that genital hiatus >3.75 cm was highly predictive of apical support loss (area under the curve, >0.8 in all models).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing genital hiatus size is associated highly with and predictive of apical vaginal support loss. Specifically, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification measurement genital hiatus of ≥3.75 cm is highly predictive of apical support loss by all study definitions. This simple measurement can be used to screen for apical support loss and the need for further evaluation of apical vaginal support before planning a hysterectomy or prolapse surgery.

Prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is a highly prevalent condition in the female population, which impairs the health-related quality of life of affected individuals. Despite the lack of robust evidence, selective modification of obstetric events or other risk factors could play a central role in the prevention of prolapse. While the value of pelvic floor muscle training as a preventive treatment remains uncertain, it has an essential role in the conservative management of prolapse. Surgical trends are currently changing due to the controversial issues surrounding the use of mesh and the increasing demand for uterine preservation. The evolution of laparoscopic and robotic surgery has increased the use of these techniques in pelvic floor surgery.

A prospective study of a single-incision sling at the time of robotic sacrocolpopexy

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Miniarc Precise® single-incision sling (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA) placed at the time of a robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Methods

This was a prospective study of a single-incision suburethral sling placed at the time of robotic sacrocolpopexy in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse. Primary outcome measure was cure at 1 year, defined objectively by a negative cough stress test (CST) and subjectively by a score of “0 or 1” on question 17 of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20): “Do you experience urine leakage related to coughing/sneezing/laughing?” Secondary outcome measures included the change in Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and Urinary Impact Questionnaire (UIQ-7) scores at 1 year. All sling-related complications were reported. Paired Student’s t test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for statistical analysis.

Results

One hundred and one patients were included between August 2010 and July 2012. One-year follow-up was available for 97 out of 101 patients (96 %). Objective cure was 90 % and subjective cure was 87 %. Baseline UDI-6 scores improved from 34.8 ± 25.1 to 6.7 ± 11.2 at 1 year (p < 0.001). Similarly, UIQ-7 scores improved from 21.1 ± 22.8 to 2.4 ± 8.2 at 1 year (p < 0.001). There were no intraoperative cystotomies, no mesh erosions, no sling revisions, and no cases of urinary retention. The retreatment rate for persistent SUI was 8 % (8 out of 97).

Conclusions

The addition of a single-incision suburethral sling at the time of robotic sacrocolpopexy in women with SUI resulted in an 87 % cure rate at 1 year.

Clinical challenges in the management of vaginal prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is highly prevalent, and negatively affects a woman’s quality of life. Women with bothersome prolapse may be offered pessary management or may choose to undergo corrective surgery. In choosing the most appropriate surgical procedure, there are many factors to consider. These may include the location(s) of anatomic defects, the severity of prolapse symptoms, the activity level of the woman, and concerns regarding the durability of the repair. In many instances, women and their surgeons are challenged to weigh the risks and benefits of native tissue versus mesh-augmented repairs. Though mesh-augmented repairs may offer better durability, they are also associated with unique complications, such as mesh erosion. Furthermore, newer surgical techniques of mesh placement via abdominal or vaginal routes may result in different outcomes compared to traditional techniques. Biologic grafts may also be considered to improve durability of a surgical repair, while avoiding potential complications of synthetic mesh. In this article, we review many of the clinical challenges that gynecologic surgeons face in the surgical management of vaginal prolapse. Furthermore, we review data that can help guide decision making when treating women with pelvic organ prolapse.

Subjective and objective results 1 year after robotic sacrocolpopexy using a lightweight Y-mesh

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this study was to assess outcomes following robotic sacrocolpopexy using a lightweight polypropylene Y-mesh.

Methods

During our study period, all patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy were enrolled in this single-arm prospective trial. Endpoints included Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) values; Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, short form 20 (PFDI-20); Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, short form 7 (PFIQ-7); Surgical Satisfaction scores; and the Sandvik Incontinence Severity Index. All surgeries were performed with a pre-configured monofilament type 1 polypropylene Y-mesh (Alyte©, C.R. Bard, Covington, GA, USA). Cure rates at 12 months were calculated using two separate definitions: (1) “clinical cure”: no POP-Q points > 0, point C ≤ −5, no prolapse symptoms on the PFDI-20, and no reoperations for prolapse and (2) “objective anatomic cure”: POP-Q stage 0 or 1, point C of ≤ −5, and no reoperations for prolapse.

Results

A total of 150 patients underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy and 143 (95 %) were available for 12-month follow-up. Mean age was 58.6 ± 9.8 and mean body mass index was 26.3 ± 4.5. Mean operative time and blood loss were 148 ± 27.6 min (range 75–250 min) and 51.2 ± 32, respectively. There were no mesh erosions or exposures, and mesh edges were not palpable in any patient. At 12 months the clinical cure rate was 95 %, and the objective anatomic cure rate was 84 %. The PFDI-20 mean score improved from 98 at baseline to 17 at 12 months (p < 0.0001); PFIQ-7 scores improved from 59 to 6.5 (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Robotic sacrocolpopexy using this lightweight polypropylene Y-mesh offers excellent subjective and objective results at 1 year.