Historic transvaginal meshes and procedures: what did my patient have done?

A comparison between the vaginal patch plastron associated with the anterior sacrospinous fixation and the Uphold™ LITE vaginal support system for the treatment of advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to compare efficacy and safety of the vaginal patch plastron (VPP) associated to the anterior sacrospinous fixation (SSLF-A) with a TVM procedure (Uphold™ LITE support-system) for the treatment of the advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse.

STUDY DESIGN

Single-center retrospective study. Women with symptomatic anterior prolapse ≥ III stage according to the POP-quantification (POP-Q) system and submitted to the VPP associated with the SSLF-A or to the Uphold™ procedure were included. Primary outcome was to compare objective and subjective cystocele relapse and reoperation rate at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was to describe peri- and postoperative complications. Pearson chi-square test and exact Fisher test were adopted for categorical variables, while intergroup Mann-Whitney U test and intragroup Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for continuous variables; the statistical analysis was conducted at 95 % confidence level.

RESULTS

Fifty-five women in VPP-group and 118 women in Uphold-group were included. At 6-month follow-up, objective anterior relapse in VPP-group (3/55, 5.4 %) was like Uphold-group (5/118, 4.2 %; p = 0.71), as well as objective apical relapse (0/55, 0 % vs 3/118, 2.5 %; p = 0.55); no significant difference emerged in bulge symptoms (1/55, 1.8 % vs 5/118, 4.2 %; p = 0.67). At 12-month follow-up women were telephonically investigated; no significant difference emerged in bulge symptoms (1/55, 1.8 % vs 6/118, 5.1 %; p = 0.43). Reoperation rate for the composite outcome POP relapse, stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and remotion of the TVM resulted lower in the VPP group (1/55, 1.8 % vs 13/118, 11 %; p = 0.03). Post-operative buttock pain (32/55, 58.2 % vs 24/118, 20.3 %; p < 0.0001) and post-operative urinary retention (16/55, 29.1 % vs 6/118, 5.1 %; p < 0.0001) were higher in VPP-group, with a complete resolution between 2 and 3 weeks after treatment.

CONCLUSION

VPP associated with SSLF-A was as effective as Uphold™ LITE support-system for both anterior and central compartment prolapse treatment at 6- and 12-month follow-up. VPP-group presented a lower reoperation rate for the composite outcome prolapse relapse repair, SUI, and removal of the mesh.

Management of Vaginal Mesh Exposures Following Female Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss considerations and current evidence for the diagnosis and management of vaginal mesh exposures following female mesh-augmented anti-incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the introduction of mesh into female pelvic surgery, various applications have been reported, each with their own unique risk profile. The most commonly encountered mesh-related complication is vaginal mesh exposure. Current evidence on the management of vaginal mesh exposure is largely limited to observational studies and case series, though this is continuing to expand. We present a synthesis of the available data, as well as clinical and surgical approaches to managing this complication. It is important for surgeons to be familiar with the management of vaginal mesh exposures. Depending on the patient's presentation and goals, there is a role for conservative measures, mesh revision, or mesh excision. Further study is warranted to standardize mesh resection techniques and explore non-surgical treatments.