Rate of Mesh Erosion After Sacrocolpopexy With Concurrent Supracervical Compared With Total Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Intrafascial Colpotomy, Edge-to-Edge Closure, and Peritoneal Graft Technique for Minimizing Mesh Erosion in Concurrent Robotic Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Sacrocolpopexy (SCP) is a recognized treatment for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). However, mesh erosion remains a concern, particularly when performed with concomitant hysterectomy. This video presents data on one case of a modified technique aimed at potentially minimizing mesh erosion in robotic SCP.

METHODS

This technique focuses on reinforcing the vaginal cuff and using a pedicled peritoneal graft to create a tissue barrier between the mesh and the vaginal vault. Procedural steps include intrafascial colpotomy, edge-to-edge cuff closure using barbed sutures, and joining anterior and posterior meshes away from the vaginal cuff.

RESULTS

The surgical technique was successfully implemented in this single patient presented in the video and was performed in ten more patients with no intraoperative or postoperative complications. During the follow-up period, there were no signs of mesh erosion or exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

This approach emphasizing vaginal cuff strengthening and mesh separation using a pedicled peritoneal graft can be an option for reducing mesh erosion risk. This report does not provide definitive evidence that this approach reduces mesh erosion risk and further research and long-term follow-up are required to validate these findings and integrate this technique into standard management practices.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Literature is lacking strong evidence about comparisons of efficacy and quality of life-related outcomes between laparoscopic total and/or supracervical hysterectomy (LTH/LSCH) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy (LSH).

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and compare available data on this topic providing a useful clinical tool in the treatment decision process.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We performed a systematic research of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Gooogle Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared at least one efficacy outcome (objective or subjective outcome) between LTH/LSCH with LSC and LSH. Data on surgery-related morbidities were also extracted where available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of nine observational studies. LTH/LSCH with LSH was associated with a significantly higher objective success (apical compartment OR 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-28.33; I2 = 0%; P = 0.001; anterior compartment OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.26-4.30; I2 = 12%; P = 0.007) and subjective success (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.42-7.17; I2 = 39%; P = 0.005). No differences were found regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications, sexual dysfunction, and stress urinary incontinence rate after surgery. Hysteropexy showed shorter operative time and shorter hospital length with a pool mean difference of 27.37 min (95% CI 18.04-32.71; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001) and 0.7 days (95% CI 0.24-1.17; I2 = 75%; P = 0.003), respectively. Concurrent hysterectomy was not associated with a higher rate of mesh-related complications (P = 0.53). No major differences were found regarding recurrence and reoperation rate (P = 0.10 and P = 0.93, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

LTH/LSCH with LSC has better objective and subjective outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery than LSH alone, especially for apical and anterior compartments, and is not associated with higher postoperative sexual dysfunction and mesh-related complications. Adequate preoperative counseling is highly recommended in patients who desire uterine preservation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024537270.

Sacrocolpopexy: Alternatives to Mesh Grafts

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The ongoing pelvic mesh controversy, coupled with a regulatory pause in using pelvic mesh in some countries, has created a need for mesh-free alternatives for sacrocolpopexy (SCP). This article provides an overview of mesh-free alternatives for SCP.

METHODS

MEDLINE and PubMed searches were conducted to identify studies reporting on autologous and non-autologous biologic grafts for SCP. Identified studies were reviewed by two of the authors (CY and MR).

RESULTS

Emerging evidence on autologous fascia lata (AFL) and rectus sheath (ARS) for SCP is promising, with low donor site morbidity. Non-autologous biologic grafts for SCP are mostly reported to be inferior to mesh.

CONCLUSIONS

Emerging evidence suggests that AFL and ARS might be safe and effective alternative options to mesh SCP. The main advantages of AFL for SCP over ARS are laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy approaches, and that a larger graft can be safely harvested. The benefits of utilising allografts and xenografts are limited by their reduced durability compared with mesh and patient acceptability.

Associations Between Short-Term Postoperative Outcomes and Immunocompromised Status in Patients Undergoing Sacrocolpopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Few data exist on the impact of immunosuppression on perioperative outcomes in women undergoing sacrocolpopexy. The objective of this study was to compare differences in 30-day perioperative morbidity in immunocompromised versus non-immunocompromised women undergoing sacrocolpopexy (SCP). We hypothesize that compared with the non-immunocompromised group, immunocompromised women undergoing SCP experience worse composite 30-day postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of female patients aged 18 years or older who underwent sacrocolpopexy from 2012 to 2017. Current procedural terminology (CPT) codes 57280 and 57425 identified sacrocolpopexy in the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database. The primary exposure was a binary indicator of immunocompromised status, and the primary outcome was a composite indicator of readmission, reoperation, or a severe adverse event 30 days after surgery. Marginal standardization, a G-computation method, was used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) representing the association between exposure and outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 13,505 women underwent SCP between 2012 and 2017. Of those, 2,625 (19.4%) had an indicator of immunocompromised status, with diabetes and smoking being most common. The risk of the composite adverse outcome in immunocompromised women was 7.3% versus 4.6% in non-immunocompromised women. After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, and body mass index, immunocompromised women experienced 54% increased relative risk of an adverse outcome, compared with non-immunocompromised women (RR = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.31, 1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Immunocompromised status, most commonly caused by diabetes and smoking, increases the risk of readmission, reoperation, and a severe adverse event within 30 days of sacrocolpopexy.

Minimally Invasive Total Versus Supracervical Hysterectomy With Sacrocolpopexy

IMPORTANCE

Limited data exist comparing total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSCH) at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare TLH versus LSCH at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse, hypothesizing that LSCH would demonstrate a higher proportion of recurrent prolapse, but a lower proportion of mesh exposures.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective, secondary analysis comparing a prospective cohort of patients undergoing TLH sacrocolpopexy versus a retrospective cohort of patients who had undergone LSCH sacrocolpopexy. Our primary outcome was composite anatomic pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (prolapse beyond hymen, apical descent > half vaginal length, retreatment). Secondary outcomes included vaginal mesh exposures.

RESULTS

There were 733 procedures: 184 (25.1%) TLH sacrocolpopexy and 549 (74.9%) LSCH sacrocolpopexy. Median follow-up was longer in the TLH cohort (369 [IQR 354-386] vs 190 [IQR 63-362] days, P < 0.01). There was no difference in composite prolapse recurrence between groups on bivariable analysis (3.3% vs 4.7%, P = 0.40). However, multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that TLH sacrocolpopexy had lower odds of composite pelvic organ prolapse recurrence than LSCH sacrocolpopexy (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.82, P = 0.02). Among procedures with lightweight mesh types, TLH demonstrated a higher proportion of mesh exposures compared to LSCH (10 [5.4%] vs 4 [1.1%], P < 0.01); however, this was not significant after controlling for confounders (OR 4.51, 95% CI 0.88-39.25, P = 0.08). There were no differences in retreatment or reoperation.

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse, both TLH and LSCH are acceptable methods of concomitant hysterectomy at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy, albeit with likely different risk profiles.

Quality of Life and Sexual Function after Laparoscopic Posterior Vaginal Plication Plus Sacral Colpopexy for Severe Posterior Vaginal Prolapse

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) is the gold standard treatment for women with apical/anterior pelvic organ prolapse (POP). For isolated posterior vaginal prolapse, instead, the literature suggests fascial native tissue repair. This is a retrospective 2-year quality-of-life follow-up study after laparoscopic posterior plication (LPP) combined with LSC in patients with anterior/apical prolapse combined with severe posterior colpocele. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the subjective outcomes quality of life (QoL), sexual function, and patient satisfaction rate. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate perioperative and anatomical outcomes at the 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

A total of 139 consecutive patients with anterior and/or apical prolapse (POP-Q stage ≥ II) and severe posterior vaginal prolapse (posterior POP-Q stage ≥ III) were retrospectively selected from our database among women who underwent, from November 2018 to February 2021, a "two-meshes" LSC. The patients were classified into Group A (81 patients; LSC plus LPP) and Group B (67 patients; LSC alone). The primary endpoint was evaluated using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7), the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), and the EuroQol (EQ-5D). The secondary endpoint was studied using the POP-Q study and an intra-, peri-, and post-operative complications assessment. Two-year follow-up data were analyzed for the study.

RESULTS

At 2 years, all women showed a statistically significant amelioration of their symptoms on the QoL questionnaires. We found a statistical difference in favor of posterior plication in terms of the PGI-I successful outcome rate (Group A versus B: 85.3% versus 67.1%), FSDS (median 11 versus 21), and PISQ-12 (median 89 versus 62) (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). A significant improvement of all EQ-5D values was observed from baseline to 2-year follow-up, and only for the "pain/discomfort" domains did we observe a significant improvement in LSC plus LPP patients versus LSC alone (p < 0.05). LSC plus LPP women showed, at 2 years, a significant amelioration of their Ap and GH POP-Q points. We observed no statistical differences in terms of intra-post-operative complications or anatomic failure rate between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our LPP approach to LSC appears to be a safe, feasible, and effective treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse with a significant impact on the patient's general health and sexual quality of life. Adding laparoscopic posterior vaginal plication to "two-meshes" sacral colpopexy is recommended in patients with apical/anterior prolapse and concomitant severe posterior colpocele. This surgical approach, in addition to improving the anatomical results of these patients, is associated with a significant improvement in sexual and quality of life indexes.

Risk of postoperative mesh exposure following sacrocolpopexy with supracervical versus total concomitant laparoscopic hysterectomy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The primary objective was to compare rates of mesh exposure in women undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with concurrent supracervical vs total hysterectomy. We hypothesized there would be a lower risk of mesh exposure for supracervical hysterectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using the Premier Healthcare Database. Women undergoing sacrocolpopexy with supracervical or total hysterectomy between 2010 and 2018 were identified using Current Procedural (CPT) codes. Complications were identified using CPT and diagnosis codes; reoperations were identified using CPT codes. Mesh exposures were measured over a 2-year period. A multivariable logistic regression was performed with a priori defined predictors of mesh exposure.

RESULTS

This study includes 17,111 women who underwent minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with concomitant supracervical or total hysterectomy (6708 (39%) vs 10,403 (61%)). Women who underwent supracervical hysterectomy were older (age 60 ± 11 vs 53 ± 13, p < 0.01) and less likely to be obese (4% vs 7%, p < 0.01). Postoperative mesh exposures within 2 years were similar (supracervical n = 47, 0.7% vs total n = 65, 0.62%, p = 0.61). On logistic regression, obesity significantly reduced the odds of mesh exposure (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.01, 0.8); concomitant slings increased odds (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.28, 2.83). Supracervical hysterectomy was associated with higher rates of port site hernias (1.3% vs 0.65%, p < 0.01), but lower surgical site infections within 3 months (0.81% vs 1.2%, p = 0.03). Reoperation for recurrent prolapse within 24 months was similar (supracervical n = 94, 1.4% vs total n = 150, 1.4%, p = 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative mesh exposure rates do not significantly differ based on type of concomitant hysterectomy in this dataset.