Surgical outcomes following total Prolift: colpopexy versus hysteropexy

Role of concurrent vaginal hysterectomy in the outcomes of mesh-based vaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Hysterectomy is often performed at the time of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery; yet, there is insufficient evidence regarding the specific effect of hysterectomy on outcomes. We sought to determine the outcomes and associated short-term complications of mesh-based POP surgery with and without concurrent hysterectomy.

METHODS

We utilized the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperation System (SPARCS) database to identify patients under 55 years of age undergoing surgeries for POP with mesh between 2009 and 2014. Patients who had a hysterectomy at the time of mesh-based POP surgery were compared with those who underwent mesh-based POP surgery without hysterectomy. Outcome measures of the patient groups before and after propensity score matching were compared. We assessed the difference Chi-squared tests and log-rank tests in the entire cohort and Mantel-Haenszel stratified Chi-squared tests and Prentice-Wilcoxon tests in the matched cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1,601 women underwent mesh-based POP surgery. 921 patients underwent concurrent hysterectomy, whereas 680 had mesh-based uterine-preserving POP surgery. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in reintervention rates between groups for up to 3 years. Concurrent hysterectomy with mesh-based POP repair was consistently associated with longer hospitalization (20.0% vs 12.8% stayed longer than 2 days) and higher charges (median charges were $22,689 vs $19,273).

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent hysterectomy during mesh-based POP surgery in patients under 55 years led to more expensive charges and a longer stay compared with uterine-preserving mesh surgery. There was no difference in reintervention rates between groups for up to 3 years.

Apical prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim was to review the safety and efficacy of pelvic organ prolapse surgery for vaginal apical prolapse.

METHODS

Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials (RCT) or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 case reports. The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or "majority evidence from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D "no recommendation possible" would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi.

RESULTS

Abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) has a higher success rate than sacrospinous colpopexy with less SUI and postoperative dyspareunia for vault prolapse. ASC had greater morbidity including operating time, inpatient stay, slower return to activities of daily living and higher cost (grade A). ASC has the lowest inpatient costs compared with laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) and robotic sacral colpopexy (RSC). LSC has lower inpatient costs than RSC (grade B).In single RCTs the RSC had longer operating time than both ASC and LSC (grade B). In small trials objective outcomes appear similar although postoperative pain was greater in RSC. LSC is as effective as ASC with reduced blood loss and admission time (grade C). The data relating to operating time are conflicting. ASC performed with polypropylene mesh has superior outcomes to fascia lata (level I), porcine dermis and small intestine submucosa (level 3; grade B). In a single RCT, LSC had a superior objective and subjective success rate and lower reoperation rate compared with polypropylene transvaginal mesh for vault prolapse (grade B).Level 3 evidence suggests that vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension, McCall culdoplasty, iliococcygeus fixation and colpocleisis are relatively safe and effective interventions (grade C).

CONCLUSION

Sacral colpopexy is an effective procedure for vault prolapse and further data are required on the route of performance and efficacy of this surgery for uterine prolapse. Polypropylene mesh is the preferred graft at ASC. Vaginal procedures for vault prolapse are well described and are suitable alternatives for those not suitable for sacral colpopexy.

Management options for women with uterine prolapse interested in uterine preservation

A variety of nonsurgical and surgical treatment options exist for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. While nonsurgical management is often selected as first-line treatment, many women eventually elect to undergo surgical management. Traditionally, prolapse repair often includes concomitant hysterectomy; however, women increasingly desire uterine preservation for a myriad of reasons. Multiple surgical procedures have been described to correct apical prolapse while preserving the uterus. Many studies suggest similar anatomic and functional outcomes compared to prolapse procedures with concomitant hysterectomy. Potential benefits include decreased operative time and avoidance of hysterectomy-specific complications, although there are several unique issues to consider if the uterus is retained. Surgeons must provide adequate counseling and preoperative evaluation before proceeding with uterine preservation.

Mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery and their management: A systematic review

We reviewed the incidence, predisposing factors, presentation and management of complications related to the use of synthetic mesh in the management of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse repair. Immediate complications, such as bleeding, hematoma, injury to adjacent organs during placement of mesh and complication of voiding dysfunction are not discussed in this review, since they are primarily related to technique. A PubMed search of related articles published in English was done from April 2008 to March 2011. Key words used were urinary incontinence, mesh, complications, midurethral sling, anterior prolapse, anterior vaginal repair, pelvic organ prolapse, transvaginal mesh, vault prolapse, midurethral slings, female stress urinary incontinence, mesh erosion, vaginal mesh complications, and posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Since there were very few articles dealing with the management of mesh-related complications in the period covered in the search we extended the search from January 2005 onwards. Articles were selected to fit the scope of the topic. In addition, landmark publications and Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) data (FDA website) were included on the present topic. A total of 170 articles were identified. The use of synthetic mesh in sub-urethral sling procedures is now considered the standard for the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence. Synthetic mesh is being increasingly used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. While the incidence of extrusion and erosion with mid-urethral sling is low, the extrusion rate in prolapse repair is somewhat higher and the use in posterior compartment remains controversial. When used through the abdominal approach the extrusion and erosion rates are lower. The management of mesh complication is an individualized approach. The choice of the technique should be based on the type of mesh complication, location of the extrusion and/or erosion, its magnitude, severity and potential recurrence of pelvic floor defect.

Comparison of short-term outcomes following pelvic reconstruction with Perigee and Apogee systems: hysterectomy or not?

Introduction and hypothesis

This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes between hysterectomy and uterine preservation in pelvic reconstruction with Perigee® and Apogee® systems for severe pelvic organ prolapse.

Methods

Ninety-one women who have undergone transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery with Perigee and Apogee systems for severe pelvic organ prolapse were divided into two groups: hysterectomy (n = 39) and uterine preservation (n = 52). The pre-operative and post-operative assessments include subjective urinary and prolapse symptoms, objective pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system, urodynamic examination, and complications.

Results

The mean follow-up period was 8.9 months (range, 0.9–26.5). There were no anatomical differences between the two groups other than a longer perineal body in the hysterectomy group (3.9 vs. 3.6, p < 0.05) and a longer total vaginal length in the uterine preservation group (8.2 vs. 7.8, p < 0.05). Preservation of uterus has significantly reduced operative time, blood loss, and days of urine indwelling catheter (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Hysterectomy and uterine preservation have comparable anatomical outcomes and post-operative complications in pelvic reconstruction with Perigee and Apogee systems at short-term follow-up.