Effects of preoperative vaginal estrogen therapy for the incidence of mesh complication after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in postmenopausal women: is it helpful or a myth? A 1-year randomized controlled trial

Complications of Pelvic Prolapse Surgery Using Mesh: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a public health problem that influences millions of women around the globe, and it has a significant impact on the quality of life. From the FDA statement regarding the complications of using mesh implants in POP surgery to studies that have shown the benefits and side effects, we conducted a systematic review investigating the complications associated with surgical mesh implantation for POP repair.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a comprehensive search of scientific databases. Studies evaluating the use of mesh in POP surgery and reporting on associated complications were included.

RESULTS

Among 2816 studies, 28 studies met the research criteria, with a total number of 8958 patients, revealing that in laparoscopic mesh surgery, the rate of mesh exposure was lower compared to vaginal mesh surgery, among other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic mesh surgery is superior as a long-term approach for POP repair compared to vaginal mesh surgery, offering lower complication rates and potentially better anatomical success. However, vaginal mesh surgery remains a valuable option for patients who are unsuitable for laparoscopy due to specific factors. Future research should explore alternative techniques, like pectopexy with or without mesh, to further improve surgical outcomes and patient experience.

New Possibilities for Hormonal Vaginal Treatment in Menopausal Women

Hormonal vaginal therapy is an effective treatment option for women who experience vaginal symptoms related to hormonal changes. Estrogen and prasterone are widely used as vaginal treatments, particularly for urogenital atrophy. These symptoms may include vaginal dryness, itching, burning, and pain during sexual intercourse, all of which can significantly affect a woman's quality of life. Previous studies have indicated that such treatment improves tissue elasticity, moisturizes the vagina, and can have a substantial impact on urine incontinence and vaginal microflora and decreases dyspareunia. Hormonal therapy is also useful and commonly used before vaginal surgical treatment. Prasterone is quite a new option for vaginal therapy in Poland and is mainly recommended for dyspareunia in menopausal women. The study related to prasterone therapy emphasizes its effectiveness and safety, making it advantageous to explore its beneficial impact. This paperwork aims to summarize the mechanism of action as well as the effects of both drugs and their beneficial action during vaginal treatment.

Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the descent of a woman's uterus, bladder, or rectum into the vagina. It affects 50% of women over 50 years old who have given birth to at least one child, and recognised risk factors are older age, higher number of births, and higher body mass index. This review assesses the effects of oestrogen therapy, alone or in combination with other treatments, on POP in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of local and systemic oestrogen therapy in the management of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms in postmenopausal women, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (up to 20 June 2022), which includes CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, multi-arm RCTs, and cross-over RCTs that evaluated the effects of oestrogen therapy (alone or in combination with other treatments) versus placebo, no treatment, or other interventions in postmenopausal women with any grade of POP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials using prespecified outcome measures and a piloted extraction form. The same review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Had data allowed, we would have created summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies including a total of 1002 women. In general, studies were at high risk of bias in terms of blinding of participants and personnel, and there were also some concerns about selective reporting. Owing to insufficient data for the outcomes of interest, we were unable to perform our planned subgroup analyses (systemic versus topical oestrogen, parous versus nulliparous women, women with versus without a uterus). No studies assessed the effects of oestrogen therapy alone versus no treatment, placebo, pelvic floor muscle training, devices such as vaginal pessaries, or surgery. However, we did identify three studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with vaginal pessaries versus vaginal pessaries alone and 11 studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with surgery versus surgery alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence from RCTs to draw any solid conclusions on the benefits or harms of oestrogen therapy for managing POP symptoms in postmenopausal women. Topical oestrogen in conjunction with pessaries was associated with fewer adverse vaginal events compared with pessaries alone, and topical oestrogen in conjunction with surgery was associated with reduced postoperative urinary tract infections compared with surgery alone; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as the studies that contributed data varied substantially in their design. There is a need for larger studies on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oestrogen therapy, used alone or in conjunction with pelvic floor muscle training, vaginal pessaries, or surgery, for the management of POP. These studies should measure outcomes in the medium and long term.

Hormone therapy for sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis update

IMPORTANCE

Distressing sexual problems are a common complaint of menopausal women. In 2013, a Cochrane review assessed the effect of hormone therapy on sexual function in menopausal women; however, new evidence has since been published, which should be considered.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to update the evidence synthesis on the effect of hormone therapy, compared with control, on sexual function in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Thirteen databases and clinical trial registries (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciéncias da Saúde, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ISRCTN) were searched from December 2012 to March 30, 2022. Backward reference searching on all retrieved full texts was also performed. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane ROB.2 tool. Data were pooled in random-effect model meta-analyses, which included all studies identified in the present search and all studies previously included in the 2013 Cochrane review.

FINDINGS

Forty-seven randomized controlled trials (35,912 participants) were included in the systematic review, and 34 randomized controlled trials (15,079 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that, in comparison to control, estrogen therapy (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.29; I2 = 59%; 2,925 participants, 16 studies), estrogen plus progestogen therapy (SMD, 0.11; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.29; I2 = 65%; 2,432 participants, 7 studies), tibolone (SMD, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.28; I2 = 0%; 916 participants, 2 studies), and selective estrogen receptor modulators (SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30; I2 = 0%; 1,058 participants, 4 studies) may result in no effect to small benefit on sexual function composite score.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Hormone therapy may slightly improve sexual functioning. This potential small benefit should be considered when discussing treatment options for other menopausal symptoms.

Guidelines for vulvar and vaginal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society recommendations

This is the first collaborative Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society guideline for optimal perioperative care for vulvar and vaginal surgeries. An Embase and PubMed database search of publications was performed. Studies on each topic within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery vulvar and vaginal outline were selected, with emphasis on meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective cohort studies. All studies were reviewed and graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. All recommendations on the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery topics are based on the best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented.

Efficacy and patient satisfaction of pelvic organ prolapse reduction using transvaginal mesh: A Canadian perspective

INTRODUCTION

Due to U.S Food and Drud Administration warnings and class-action lawsuits, the use of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse surgery is controversial. We report data from two Canadian centres, focusing on recurrence and reoperation rates, complication rates, and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

A retrospective medical chart review was performed. Patients were also invited to a long-term followup clinic for a complete questionnaire and gynecological exam. Patients unable to present to clinic for followup had the option to answer the questionnaire via telephone.

RESULTS

A total of 334 patients were operated between 2000 and 2013. Median followup was 38 months for questionnaire and 36 months for physical exam. Thirty-seven patients (11.1%) required repeat operation, including 17 for recurrent prolapse and 10 for mesh exposure; 98.8% of patients reported feeling subjectively improved by their prolapse surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Midterm results are satisfactory and patient subjective satisfaction is high following transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse.

No. 351-Transvaginal Mesh Procedures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

OBJECTIVE

This guideline reviews the evidence related to the risks and benefits of using transvaginal mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repairs in order to update recommendations initially made in 2011.

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists, residents, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with pelvic organ prolapse.

TARGET POPULATION

Adult women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse considering surgery and those who have previously undergone transvaginal mesh procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

OPTIONS

The discussion relates to transvaginal mesh procedures compared with other surgical options for pelvic organ prolapse (mainly about vaginal native tissue repairs and minimally about other alternatives such as biological and absorbable vaginal mesh and abdominally placed surgical mesh).

OUTCOMES

The outcomes of interest are objective and subjective success rates and intraoperative and postoperative complications, such as adjacent organ injury (urinary, gastrointestinal), infection, hematoma/bleeding, vaginal mesh exposure, persistent pain, dyspareunia, de novo stress urinary incontinence, and reoperation.

EVIDENCE

PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Database, and EMBASE were searched using the key words pelvic organ prolapse/surgery*, prolapse/surgery*, surgical mesh, surgical mesh*/adverse effects, transvaginal mesh, and pelvic organ prolapse.

RESULTS

were restricted to English or French language and human research. Articles obtained through this search strategy were included until the end of June 2016. Pertinent new studies were added up to September 2016. Grey literature was not searched. Clinical practice guidelines and guidelines of specialty societies were reviewed. Systematic reviews were included when available. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included when evidence for the outcome of interest or in the target population was not available from systematic reviews. New studies not yet included in systematic reviews were also included. Only publications with study groups larger than 20 individuals were selected because this criterion was used in the largest meta-analysis referenced in this guideline. A total of 1470 studies were obtained; after selecting only applicable studies and excluding duplicates, 68 manuscripts were reviewed and included.

VALUES

The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed upon by the principal authors and members of the Urogynaecology Committee. The Board of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology framework. The Summary of Findings is available upon request.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND/OR COSTS

It is expected that this guideline will benefit women with pelvic organ prolapse by ensuring that health care providers are aware of outcomes related to transvaginal mesh procedures and steps in the management of related complications. This should guide patient-informed consent before such procedures are undertaken. The benefits clearly outweigh the potential harms or costs of implementation of this guideline, although no direct harms or costs are identified.

GUIDELINE UPDATE

Evidence will be reviewed 5 years after publication to decide whether all or part of the guideline should be updated. However, if important new evidence is published prior to the 5-year cycle, the review process may be accelerated for a more rapid update of some recommendations.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.