Elevate and Uterine Preservation: Two-Year Results

Role of Hysteropexy in the Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss considerations for hysteropexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and summarize available literature comparing various hysteropexy techniques to analogous procedures involving hysterectomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hysteropexy for apical POP has increased in popularity in recent years, although anatomic factors and gynecologic cancer risk must be taken into account. Native tissue hysteropexy options include the LeFort colpocleisis, sacrospinous hysteropexy, and uterosacral hysteropexy. Although vaginal mesh was banned by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019, abdominal mesh sacrohysteropexy done either open or laparoscopically remains an option in the USA. Overall, short-term prolapse outcomes appear to be comparable between uterus-sparing approaches and hysterectomy, with less blood loss and shorter operating room time observed with the uterine-sparing approaches, although long-term outcome data remains variable and limited. Uterine-sparing apical POP repair may be offered to appropriate patients without certain risk factors, although longer-term data will be required to evaluate durability.

Vaginal mesh hysteropexy: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pelvic organ prolapse surgery is performed via native tissue or graft augmented repair. Graft augmentation with synthetic mesh was introduced to improve long-term surgical outcomes compared with vaginal native tissue repairs. Vaginal hysteropexy has recently become increasingly popular due to patient preference and an improved morbidity profile over hysterectomy, while maintaining comparable efficacy. As long-term outcomes remain unanswered, mesh augmentation to vaginal hysteropexy has sought to improve efficacy while minimizing complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have demonstrated superiority of vaginal mesh hysteropexy to vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue vault suspension. Short-term follow-up of vaginal mesh hysteropexy has also demonstrated lower blood loss and operative time with improved vaginal length compared with hysterectomy. Mesh exposure rates across studies were low and comparable to those of abdominally placed prolapse mesh.

SUMMARY

Vaginal mesh hysteropexy is a comparably well tolerated and effective surgical treatment option for women with uterovaginal prolapse. Although vaginal mesh kits are not commercially available, this procedure may be a viable treatment option in select patients.

Anterior Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation With Transvaginal Mesh: Is Hysterectomy a Risk Factor for Complications?

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of hysterectomy on the risk of complications from transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery with mesh.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study between October 2010 and December 2017. Transvaginal mesh surgery was performed in patients with symptomatic anterior and/or apical prolapse (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification ≥ stage 2). The primary outcome was rate of severe surgical complications based on the Clavien-Dindo classification (defined as grade ≥3), and the secondary outcome was the anatomical success at the last postoperative follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-six patients were included, 289 of these patients underwent anterior sacrospinous fixation with uterine preservation, 50 had a previous hysterectomy and 57 underwent a concomitant hysterectomy. The median follow-up was 12 months (interquartile range, 7 months). The rate of severe complications was 2.1%, 6.0%, and 5.3% in the uterine preservation group, previous hysterectomy group, and concomitant hysterectomy group, respectively (P = 0.2). The operative time was significantly higher in the concomitant hysterectomy group, and the mesh exposure rate was significantly higher in the previous hysterectomy group. The overall recurrence rate was 7.6%, with no differences between the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant and previous hysterectomy did not appear to increase the severe complication rate or anatomical failure after transvaginal mesh surgery. However, a history of hysterectomy appears to be a risk factor for vaginal mesh exposure. This must be considered in the choice between prosthetic and autologous management options for the treatment of posthysterectomy vault prolapse.

Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after transvaginal mesh surgery

OBJECTIVE

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence in transvaginal mesh surgery patients has become increasingly common, due to widespread mesh use before the FDA alert. The aim was to assess feasibility, effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSCP) in recurrent POP after previous vaginal surgery with polypropylene mesh.

STUDY DESIGN

Medical records of 20 patients with ≥ stage 2 POP recurrence, who underwent LSCP from January 2015 to July 2018, were retrospectively analyzed in a monocentric observational study. We analyzed operative time, intraoperative complications - defined as bowel, bladder, ureteral, or vascular injuries, post-operative complications - assessed with Clavien-Dindo's classification, and postoperative patient satisfaction - evaluated with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire. Pre- and postoperative data were compared using t-test.

RESULTS

All women presented apical prolapse recurrence regardless of mesh type implanted and most of them involved the posterior compartment. No perioperative complications or cases of mesh extrusion, de novo urinary stress, urge incontinence, dyspareunia were recorded. At 12-month follow-up the POP-Q examinations demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of all parameters with a complete resolution of bulge, voiding and storage symptoms in all patients.

CONCLUSION

LSCP suggests safety, feasible and efficacy in the treatment of recurrent POP after prior transvaginal polypropylene mesh surgery. We suggest to conduct a prospective research with larger sample size to gain further insights.

Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review the literature on apical pelvic organ prolapse surgery with uterine preservation compared with prolapse surgeries including hysterectomy and provide evidence-based guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

The sources for our data were MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to January 2017.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We accepted randomized and nonrandomized studies of uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries compared with those involving hysterectomy.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, efficacy outcomes, and adverse events, and they were individually and collectively assessed for methodological quality. If 3 or more studies compared the same surgeries and reported the same outcome, a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

We screened 4467 abstracts and identified 94 eligible studies, 53 comparing uterine preservation to hysterectomy in prolapse surgery. Evidence was of moderate quality overall. Compared with hysterectomy plus mesh sacrocolpopexy, uterine preservation with sacrohysteropexy reduces mesh exposure, operative time, blood loss, and surgical cost without differences in prolapse recurrence. Compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension, uterine preservation in the form of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy improves the C point and vaginal length on the pelvic organ prolapse quantification exam, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain and functioning, and hospital stay, but open abdominal sacrohysteropexy worsens bothersome urinary symptoms, operative time, and quality of life. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy (vs with hysterectomy) decreases mesh exposure, reoperation for mesh exposure, postoperative bleeding, and estimated blood loss and improves posterior pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement. Transvaginal uterosacral or sacrospinous hysteropexy or the Manchester procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue suspension both showed improved operative time and estimated blood loss and no worsening of prolapse outcomes with uterine preservation. However, there is a significant lack of data on prolapse outcomes >3 years after surgery, the role of uterine preservation in obliterative procedures, and longer-term risk of uterine pathology after uterine preservation.

CONCLUSION

Uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries improve operating time, blood loss, and risk of mesh exposure compared with similar surgical routes with concomitant hysterectomy and do not significantly change short-term prolapse outcomes. Surgeons may offer uterine preservation as an option to appropriate women who desire this choice during apical prolapse repair.

Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Few studies have compared the different approaches of mesh surgery in patients with severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP). In addition to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy (LSC-Cx), anterior vaginal mesh (AVM) may be an effective approach for correcting anterior vaginal wall associated with apical POP in women with advanced POP.

METHODS

A randomised controlled trial (RCT; January 2011 to March 2016) including 120 patients (60/group) with advanced symptomatic POP, with a predominant anterior vaginal wall descent stage III or greater in combination with a stage II or III apical defect (uterus or vaginal vault). Patients underwent four visits: baseline, 3, 6 and12 months after surgery. The main outcome was anatomical success defined as anterior and posterior vaginal wall not descending beyond the hymen and vaginal apex descent no more than one third into the vagina. Secondary variables: PFDI, ICIQ-UI-SF, intraoperative variables, postoperative morbidity and complications.

RESULTS

Anatomical success was achieved with LSC-Cx in 79% and with AVM in 76% (NS). No statistically significant differences were found among POP-Q anterior vaginal wall points between groups, whereas better results were obtained with LSC-Cx in posterior vaginal wall points and total vaginal length. Intraoperative outcomes were similar in the two groups, except for operating time (78.05 min LSC-Cx vs 44.28 min AVM). There were no statistically significant differences related to de novo stress urinary incontinence and dyspareunia. Worse results were found in the CRADI-8 in the LSC-Cx group, owing to constipation. Late postoperative complications and reinterventions were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were found in the anatomical correction of anterior and apical POP. The LSC-Cx group presented better correction of posterior vaginal wall defects and a longer total vaginal length.

Comparison of UpholdTM Vaginal Mesh Procedure with Hysterectomy or Uterine Preservation for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Hysterectomy is the empirical treatment for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) without robust evidence to prove its efficacy. Uphold transvaginal mesh (TVM) system is an innovated device with smaller area, superior anterior/apical support with single incision to treat POP. The prospective cohort study aims to evaluate Uphold TVM's performance with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Inclusion criteria specify patients suffering from stage 2 or more anterior/apical prolapse without previous hysterectomy. Exclusion criteria specify those with contraindications to uterine preservation, such as leiomyomas, adenomyosis, endometrial hyperplasia, abnormal uterine bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, cervical dysplasia, receiving tamoxifen treatment, family history of gynecology cancer, or colon cancer and incapability to be routinely followed. Thirty patients are recruited in the hysterectomy group and 66 patients in the hysteropexy group. The results demonstrate that patients with Uphold mesh only experience longer vaginal length, shorter operation duration, less blood loss and less post-operation pain. The performance in anatomical correction, lower urinary tract symptoms improvement, de novo dyspareunia, urodynamic study parameters and mesh extrusion rates are comparable with or without uterus preservation. The information is useful in pre-operation counseling, when the patient can make an educated choice whether or not to receive concomitant hysterectomy.

The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (VVP) has been investigated in several randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but a systematic review of the topic is still lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of treatments for VVP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the treatment of VVP found in PubMed and Embase. Reference lists of identified relevant articles were checked for additional articles. A network plot was constructed to illustrate the geometry of the network of the treatments included. Only RCTs reporting on the treatment of VVP were eligible, conditional on a minimum of 30 participants with VVP and a follow-up of at least 6 months.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs reporting 846 women (ranging from 95 to 168 women) met the inclusion criteria. All surgical techniques were associated with good subjective results, and without differences between the compared technique, with the exception of the comparison of vaginal mesh (VM) vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). LSC is associated with a higher satisfaction rate. The anatomical results of the sacrocolpopexy (laparoscopic, robotic [RSC]. and abdominal [ASC]) are the best (62-91%), followed by the VM. However, the ranges of the anatomical outcome of VM were wide (43-97%). The poorest results are described for the sacrospinal fixation (SSF; 35-81%), which also correlates with the higher reoperation rate for pelvic organ prolapse (POP; 5-9%). The highest percentage of complications were reported after ASC (2-19%), VM (6-29%), and RSC (54%). Mesh exposure was seen most often after VM (8-21%). The rate of reoperations carried out because of complications, recurrence prolapse, and incontinence of VM was 13-22%. Overall, sacrocolpopexy reported the best results at follow-up, with an outlier of one trial reporting the highest reoperation rate for POP (11%). The results of the RSC are too small to make any conclusion, but LSC seems to be preferable to ASC.

CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of techniques was difficult because of heterogeneity; therefore, a network meta-analysis was not possible. All techniques have proved to be effective. The reported differences between the techniques were negligible. Therefore, a standard treatment for VVP could not be given according to this review.