Evidence to justify retention of transvaginal mesh: comparison between laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and transvaginal Elevate™ mesh

Safety and Effectiveness of G-Mesh® Gynecological Meshes Intended for Surgical Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse-A Retrospective Analysis

Background: The prevalence of POP in women ranges from 30-40%, with 10-20% requiring surgical intervention. Annually, over 225,000 surgical procedures for POP are performed in the United States. The severity of prolapse is assessed using the four-stage POP-Q system, which facilitates clinical research by providing a standardized measure of defect severity. Surgical intervention is indicated for more severe cases, with various techniques available through vaginal or abdominal access. Synthetic meshes, primarily made of polypropylene (PP), are commonly used in POP surgeries due to their biocompatibility and mechanical support. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a non-resorbable, light polypropylene gynecological mesh (G-Mesh®, Tricomed S.A., Łódź, Poland) in the surgical treatment of pelvic floor prolapse in women. Methods: The meshes were implanted via laparoscopy (Dubuisson method) and laparotomy or transvaginally. A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted involving 81 patients aged 28-83. Results: The results collected at three follow-up visits indicated a high level of patient satisfaction, minimal discomfort, and no significant pain. Many patients emphasized significant improvement in quality of life and the lack of any adverse events associated with the presence of the implant. Conclusions: The G-Mesh® gynecological mesh has emerged as an effective and safe intervention for treating pelvic floor dysfunction in women, addressing conditions such as cystocele, rectocele, uterine prolapse, and ureterocele.

Risk factors for postoperative pain after cystocele repair with mesh

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Prolapse is a common condition seen in women and its therapeutical management consists first and foremost of surgery. Postoperative pain is one of the most common side effects seen after surgery. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for postoperative pain after cystocele repair with mesh.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the multicenter randomized trial PROSPERE, which compared cystocele repair with mesh according to the vaginal or laparoscopic approach. The presence of postoperative pain was assessed by a pain-specific self-reported questionnaire (Questionnaire de Baudelocque). The statistical analysis is based on the Wilcoxon, Chi-squared, and Fisher's tests.

RESULTS

The prevalence of postoperative pain (pain persisting more than 6 months) was 39% (80 out of 205, 95% CI 32.4-46.1), with 6.3% (13 out of 205) of chronic pain reports. Preoperative pain was the only statistically significant risk factor OR = 2.32 (p = 0,007; 95% CI 1.24-4.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons must be careful with preoperative painful prolapse and should inform their patient of the risk of developing postoperative chronic pain.

Urinary and sexual impact of pelvic reconstructive surgery for genital prolapse by surgical route. A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The main objective of the study was to evaluate the rates of de novo stress urinary (SUI) and postoperative dyspareunia after both sacrocolpopexy/hysteropexy (SCP) and vaginal mesh surgery.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label study with two parallel groups treated by either SCP or Uphold Lite vaginal mesh was carried out. Study participants were ≥ 50 and < 80 years old patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage ≥2 who were considered eligible for reconstructive surgery and who were sexually active with no dyspareunia and free from bothersome SUI at presentation. Women were assessed before surgery and at 4-8 weeks and 11-13 months after using validated measures including POP-Q, Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Data were also collected for health economics evaluation.

RESULTS

Of the required sample of 156 women, 42 women (19 SCP and 23 vaginal mesh) were only recruited owing to the discontinuation of vaginal mesh worldwide. The median follow-up was 376 days. The rates of bothersome de novo SUI were similar in the SCP and Uphold vaginal mesh groups (15.79 vs 15.00%, OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.22-4.14]). Among 30 sexually active patients at follow-up, the rates of women reporting de novo dyspareunia "usually or always" were 6.7% after SCP vs 13.3% after vaginal mesh (p = 1). Health economics evaluation showed a cost saving of 280€ in favor of the Uphold vaginal mesh technique, but no significant difference in the total cost (2,934.97€ for SCP vs 3,053.26€ for Uphold vaginal mesh).

CONCLUSIONS

Bothersome de novo SUI and de novo dyspareunia occurred in approximately 15% and 23% of our study cohorts, with no significant difference between sacrocolpopexy/hysteropexy and anterior/apical vaginal mesh surgery. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to the small sample size.

Long-term outcomes of primary cystocele repair by transvaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy: extended follow up of the PROSPERE multicentre randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) and transvaginal mesh (TVM) at 4 years.

DESIGN

Extended follow up of a randomised trial.

SETTING

Eleven centres.

POPULATION

Women with cystocele stage ≥2 (pelvic organ prolapse quantification [POP-Q], aged 45-75 years without previous prolapse surgery.

METHODS

Synthetic non-absorbable mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space and sutured to the promontory (LS) or maintained by arms through pelvic ligaments and/or muscles (TVM).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Functional outcomes (pelvic floor distress inventory [PFDI-20] as primary outcome); anatomical assessment (POP-Q), composite outcome of success; re-interventions for complications.

RESULTS

A total of 220 out of 262 randomised patients have been followed at 4 years. PFDI-20 significantly improved in both groups and was better (but below the minimal clinically important difference) after LS (mean difference -7.2 points; 95% CI -14.0 to -0.05; P = 0.029). The improvement in quality of life and the success rate (LS 70%, 61-81% versus TVM 71%, 62-81%; hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.54; P = 0.75) were similar. POP-Q measurements did not differ, except for point C (LS -57 mm versus TVM -48 mm, P = 0.0093). The grade III or higher complication rate was lower after LS (2%, 0-4.7%) than after TVM (8.7%, 3.4-13.7%; hazard ratio 4.6, 95% CI 1.007-21.0, P = 0.049)).

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques provided improvement and similar success rates. LS had a better benefit-harm balance with fewer re-interventions due to complications. TVM remains an option when LS is not feasible.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

At 4 years, Laparoscopic Sacropexy (LS) had a better benefit-harm balance with fewer re-interventions due to complications than Trans-Vaginal Mesh (TVM).

Sacrocolpopexy compared with transvaginal mesh surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of mesh is controversial in the treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the outcomes of sacrocolpopexy compared with transvaginal mesh surgery and to provide evidence-based suggestions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched on 21 November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by one reviewer and examined by a second reviewer for accuracy. Odds ratios and 95% CI were calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty comparative studies were included. The meta-analysis was performed with subgroups. The summary odds ratios of the randomised controlled group were 1.84 (95% CI 0.79-4.29, I²  = 75%) for anatomical success, 1.41 (95% CI 0.47-4.24, I²  = 38%) for subjective success, 0.42 (95% CI 0.18-0.98, I²  = 0%) for mesh complications, 0.61 (95% CI 0.20-1.91, I²  = 0%) for prolapse reoperation and 0.44 (95% CI 0.23-0.88, I²  = 0%) for de novo dyspareunia. The mean differences were 0.77 (95% CI 0.31-1.23, I²  = 66%) for total vaginal length and -1.28 (95% CI -2.00 to -0.55, I²  = 66%) for point C after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Very-low-quality evidence indicated that the anatomical and subjective success rates of sacrocolpopexy were similar to those of transvaginal mesh surgery; sacrocolpopexy might be more beneficial than transvaginal mesh surgery in terms of mesh-related complication rates, prolapse recurrence and de novo dyspareunia. However, additional high-quality randomised trials with long-term follow-up durations are needed.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Sacrocolpopexy is beneficial after surgical anatomical changes and has decreased rates of mesh-related complications and dyspareunia.

Short-term Outcomes of Non-robotic Single-incision Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Surgical Technique

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Our main purpose was to describe the surgical technique and short-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (S-LSC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DESIGN

This study consisted of a retrospective analysis of 49 consecutive cases.

SETTING

This study was set at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from October 2016 to November 2017.

PATIENTS

The population for this study consisted of women with stage II to IV POP who met eligibility criteria for laparoscopic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

S-LSC included the use of V-loc barbed suture and retroperitoneal tunneling, in addition to standard single-incision laparoscopic surgery techniques. All 49 cases were successfully completed. All cases included concomitant procedures; 42 (85.7%) had removal of the uterus and adnexa. The main measured outcomes include patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and change in pelvic floor support (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System), and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All patients were parous, and 42.9% had a history of previous abdominal surgery. The mean operative duration from skin to skin was 201.20 ± 46.53 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss was 27.0 ± 16.6 mL. The mean pre- and post-operative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System scores were 2.2 ± 1.1 cm versus -2.6 ± 0.5 cm for the Aa point and 3.2 ± 2.8 cm versus -4.6 ± 0.8 cm for the C point (p <.05 for both). The mean pre- and post-operative Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores were 106.4 ± 18.9 versus 8.9 ± 4.26 (p <.05), suggesting that S-LSC significantly improved physical prolapse and quality of life. Four patients suffered from postoperative complications (3 mesh exposure and 1 lumbosacral pain). Six patients complained of new onset of stress urinary incontinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a feasible method to manage POP. However, the long-term effects and complications need to be further investigated.

Vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral sacrospinous fixation plus an anterior mesh versus abdominal sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of primary apical prolapse in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We compared vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral sacrospinous fixation plus an anterior polyvinylidene fluoride mesh versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of primary apical prolapse in postmenopausal women.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, single-blind, parallel study [Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clinicos (REBEC) trial register code RBR-7t6rg2] was performed from October 2015 to May 2016. A total of 71 postmenopausal women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and undergoing surgery were randomized to the abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) (n = 36) or the vaginal sacrospinous fixation with anterior mesh (VSF-AM) (n = 35) groups. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system classification was performed for objective assessment, and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS), International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF), and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Overactive Bladder (ICIQ-OAB) questionnaires were filled out for subjective evaluation by women before and 1 year after surgery. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon.

RESULTS

Both groups had improvement in almost POP-Q points (except for vaginal length in the VSF-AM group) and all ICIQ scores. The ASC group had a longer operative time (129 versus 117 min, p = 0.0038) and duration for return to activities (103 versus 57 days, p < .05). Four women (11%) in the VSF-AM group were reoperated versus none from the ASC group (p = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the study did not achieve the planned recruitment, after 12 months of follow-up, ASC did not differ from VSF-AM in objective and subjective scores (ICIQ questionnaires; POP-Q measurements). Recovery time was longer after open abdominal surgery.

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.