Partially absorbable mesh or native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial

Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more of the pelvic organs (uterus, vaginal apex, bladder, or bowel) into the vagina. In recent years, surgeons have increasingly used grafts in transvaginal repairs. Graft material can be synthetic or biological. The aim is to reduce prolapse recurrence and surpass the effectiveness of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse. This is a review update; the previous version was published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair or other grafts in the surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and two clinical trials registers (March 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 RCTs (7846 women). The certainty of the evidence was largely moderate (ranging from very low to moderate). Transvaginal permanent mesh versus native tissue repair Awareness of prolapse at six months to seven years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.95; I2 = 34%; 17 studies, 2932 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 23% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 17% and 22% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair. Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95; I2 = 35%; 17 studies, 2485 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for incontinence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.59; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 2206 women; moderate-certainty evidence). However, more women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.26; I2 = 54%; 27 studies, 3916 women; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 7.1% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7.6% and 16% will require repeat surgery after permanent mesh repair. The rate of mesh exposure was 11.8% and surgery for mesh exposure was 6.1% in women who had mesh repairs. Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; I2 = 84%; 25 studies, 3680 women; very low-certainty evidence). Permanent transvaginal mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 2001 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.28; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1997 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.79; I2 = 27%; 16 studies, 1308 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life outcomes; however, there was substantial heterogeneity in the data. Transvaginal absorbable mesh versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the two methods of repair at two years for the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44; 1 study, 54 women), rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40; 1 study, 66 women), or recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.70; 1 study, 66 women). The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for bladder-related outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Transvaginal biological graft versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1374 women; moderate-certainty evidence), repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 899 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.29; I2 = 53%; 9 studies, 1278 women; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life. Transvaginal permanent mesh versus any other permanent mesh or biological graft vaginal repair Sparse reporting of primary outcomes in both comparisons significantly limited any meaningful analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of total repeat surgery (for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure), bladder injury, and de novo stress urinary incontinence. While the direction of effects and effect sizes are relatively unchanged from the 2016 version of this review, the certainty and precision of the findings have all improved with a larger sample size. In addition, the clinical relevance of these data has improved, with 10 trials reporting 3- to 10-year outcomes. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. Data on the management of recurrent prolapse are of limited quality. Given the risk-benefit profile, we recommend that any use of permanent transvaginal mesh should be conducted under the oversight of the local ethics committee in compliance with local regulatory recommendations. Data are not supportive of absorbable meshes or biological grafts for the management of transvaginal prolapse.

Surgical treatment of advanced anterior wall and apical vaginal prolapse using the anchorless self-retaining support implant: long-term follow-up

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Following health notification by the FDA in 2008 of serious complications with transvaginal mesh for anterior pelvic organ prolapse, there has been a return to native tissue repairs. Earlier work with a self-retaining support (SRS) implant showed a high anatomical success rate with minimal implant-related complications over a medium-term follow-up. It is proposed that post-implant complications are more a consequence of the method of mesh anchoring rather than the implant itself. Our system incorporates an ultralight mesh with a frame that provides level I, II, and III support without the need for fixation. The first long-term outcomes of SRS implantation are presented.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter trial was conducted using two consecutive identical protocols of the use of the SRS implant in women with symptomatic anterior compartment prolapse extending their follow-up to 36 months. Anatomical success (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage 0 or 1 or a Ba ≤ -2) was recorded along with subjective success as defined by regular quality-of-life (PFDI-20 and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire) assessments.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients completed 36 months of follow-up. Mean Ba measurements improved from 3.1 (-1 to 6) cm to -2.8 (-1 to -3) cm and C point from 0.4 (-8 to 6) cm to -6.9 (-10 cm to 1) cm. accumulating to a significant anatomical success rate of 94.3%. Subjective success based on question #3 of the PFDI-20, analyzed for the index surgical compartment, reached 95.7%. Post-operative complications included 2 cases of urinary retention, 1 minor frame exposure, 1 case of delayed voiding dysfunction, and 2 cases of de novo stress urinary incontinence. Untreated pre-operative second-degree Bp measurements had increased in 27% at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The long-term outcome of the SRS implant shows an excellent subjective and objective success with minimal risk of complications or need for reintervention.

Features of Cell Reactions during Implantation of Biodegradable Polymer and Polypropylene in the Experiment

Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of cell infiltrates in male Wistar rats were studied from 14 days to 12 months after implantation of polypropylene and a biodegradable polymer obtained by electrospinning and consisting of 65% polycaprolactone and 35% polytrimethylene carbonate. It was found that a predominantly macrophage-giant cell reaction developed around the biodegradable polymer; it spread into the matrix and the number of cells in the infiltrate decreased, as the degradation progressed. Around polypropylene, mainly lymphocytic and leukocytic reaction was seen; it also decreased with time, but was characterized by a reverse increase in the number of lymphocytes. Immunohistochemical analysis showed that the proportion of CD38⁺ cells 12 months after implantation increased around polypropylene to a greater extent than around the biodegradable polymer, while the proportion of CD68⁺ cells decreased. These findings suggest that implantation of a biodegradable polymer caused no prolonged lymphocytic and plasma cell reaction in animals as in the case of polypropylene, which indicates that biodegradable polymer is a promising material for tissue engineering.

Sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review comparing different approaches to pelvic floor repair

OBJECTIVE

Women consider preservation of sexual activity and improvement of sexual function as important goals after pelvic organ prolapse surgery. This systematic review aimed to compare sexual activity and function before and after prolapse surgery among specific approaches to pelvic organ prolapse surgery including native tissue repairs, transvaginal synthetic mesh, biologic grafts, and sacrocolpopexy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception to March 2021.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Prospective comparative cohort and randomized studies of pelvic organ prolapse surgeries were included that reported the following specific sexual function outcomes: baseline and postoperative sexual activity, dyspareunia, and validated sexual function questionnaire scores. Notably, the following 4 comparisons were made: transvaginal synthetic mesh vs native tissue repairs, sacrocolpopexy vs native tissue repairs, transvaginal synthetic mesh vs sacrocolpopexy, and biologic graft vs native tissue repairs.

METHODS

Studies were double screened for inclusion and extracted for population characteristics, sexual function outcomes, and methodological quality. Evidence profiles were generated for each surgery comparison by grading quality of evidence for each outcome across studies using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

Screening of 3651 abstracts was performed and identified 77 original studies. The overall quality of evidence was moderate to high. There were 26 studies comparing transvaginal synthetic mesh with native tissue repairs, 5 comparing sacrocolpopexy with native tissue repairs, 5 comparing transvaginal synthetic mesh with sacrocolpopexy, and 7 comparing biologic graft with native tissue repairs. For transvaginal synthetic mesh vs native tissue repairs, no statistical differences were found in baseline or postoperative sexual activity, baseline or postoperative total dyspareunia, persistent dyspareunia, and de novo dyspareunia. Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire short form change scores were not different between transvaginal synthetic mesh and native tissue repairs (net difference, -0.3; 95% confidence interval, -1.4 to 0.8). For sacrocolpopexy vs native tissue repairs, baseline or postoperative sexual activity, baseline or postoperative total dyspareunia, de novo dyspareunia, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire short form score differences were not different. For biologic graft vs native tissue repairs, baseline or postoperative sexual activity, baseline or postoperative total dyspareunia, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire short form changes were also not different. For transvaginal synthetic mesh vs sacrocolpopexy, there was no difference in sexual activity and sexual function score change. Based on 2 studies, postoperative total dyspareunia was more common in transvaginal synthetic mesh than sacrocolpopexy (27.5% vs 12.2%; odds ratio, 2.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-5.58). The prevalence of postoperative dyspareunia was lower than preoperative dyspareunia after all surgery types.

CONCLUSION

Sexual function comparisons are most robust between transvaginal synthetic mesh and native tissue repairs and show similar prevalence of sexual activity, de novo dyspareunia, and sexual function scores. Total dyspareunia is higher after transvaginal synthetic mesh than sacrocolpopexy. Although sexual function data are sparse in the other comparisons, no other differences in sexual activity, dyspareunia, and sexual function score change were found.

Update in Transvaginal Grafts: The Role of Lightweight Meshes, Biologics, and Hybrid Grafts in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery

Transvaginal mesh/grafts have been popularized over the past 20 years in an attempt to improve the longevity of traditional vaginal pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Several national bodies have concluded that the proposed benefits of mesh/graft implantation are outweighed by the significant increase in surgery complications related to these products. As a consequence mesh products for vaginal POP surgery have been withdrawn from use in many countries. This article is a narrative review of newer mesh and graft products including lightweight polypropylene mesh products, biological grafts, hybrid grafts, and tissue engineered grafts.

Short term complications in mesh augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not higher when compared with native tissue repair

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Accumulating evidence regarding the negative long-term consequences of transvaginal mesh-based procedures for pelvic organ prolapse has led to a sharp decline in mesh-based procedures. We aimed to evaluate the short-term complications of mesh-based procedures for carefully selected patients with pelvic organ prolapse after Food and Drug Administration warnings.

METHODS

A retrospective database review of the ACS NSQIP database was completed to examine 30-day complications including re-operation, prolonged length of stay, blood transfusion, surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, readmission and wound dehiscence in mesh-augmented and native tissue-based transvaginal procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.

RESULTS

A total of 36,234 patients were included in the analysis, with only 7.1% (2574 women) having mesh-augmented repair. Using a multivariable logistical regression analysis adjusting for confounders, we found that the primary composite outcome (re-operation, hospital stay, blood transfusion and surgical site infection) was less common in the mesh group compared with the native tissue repair group (adjusted OR 0.80, CI 0.67-0.95, p = 0.009). The secondary outcomes (urinary tract infection, re-admission and wound dehiscence) were not different between the group.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that in well-chosen patients, short-term complications are not increased when using transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair.

No mesh versus mesh in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: prospective, randomised, controlled trial, long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of anterior colporrhaphy (AC) versus transvaginal polypropylene mesh (PM) for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse (AVWP) at long-term follow-up.

METHODS

Prospective and randomized controlled trial, 100 women with AVWP stage ≥ II assessed by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) underwent AC (control group) or PM insertion (mesh group). At baseline and at 60-month follow-up, safety profile, anatomical outcomes by POP-Q measurements and staging, subjective outcomes and quality of life (QoL) impact by ICIQ (SF and VV) and OAB-V8 questionnaires were assessed RESULTS: 76 women completed the study, 43 in Control versus 33 in Mesh group. Significant improvements were observed in all variables between the 2 times in each group (p < 0.0001), without differences between groups. Objective cure (POP-Q Ba ≤ - 2 and Ba ≤ - 1) occurred in 22 and 36 (51.2 and 83.7%) versus 23 and 31 (69.7 and 93.9%), p = 0.10 and 0.29; and subjective cure (VSS, no vaginal symptom) in 21 (48.8%) versus 17 (51.5%), p = 0.82, respectively, at 60-month follow-up. When adjusted for the other variables, Mesh group showed worse QoL impact due to subjective vaginal symptoms (odds ratio 3.99, CI 95% 1.13; 14.13). AVW asymptomatic mesh exposure occurred in 2 patients (6.06%) in the Mesh group.

CONCLUSIONS

AC and PM provided good overall objective and subjective outcomes for a minimum 60-month follow-up. Vaginal and urinary symptoms improved post-operatively in both groups. Mesh group experienced four times more negative impact on QoL compared to Control at 60-month follow-up.