Transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: one-year outcome analysis

Joint Report on Terminology for Surgical Procedures to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are common, but standardization of surgical terms is needed to improve the quality of investigation and clinical care around these procedures. The American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecologic Association convened a joint writing group consisting of 5 designees from each society to standardize terminology around common surgical terms in POP repair including the following: sacrocolpopexy (including sacral colpoperineopexy), sacrocervicopexy, uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament fixation, iliococcygeus fixation, uterine preservation prolapse procedures or hysteropexy (including sacrohysteropexy, uterosacral hysteropexy, sacrospinous hysteropexy, anterior abdominal wall hysteropexy, Manchester procedure), anterior prolapse procedures (including anterior vaginal repair, anterior vaginal repair with graft, and paravaginal repair), posterior prolapse procedures (including posterior vaginal repair, posterior vaginal repair with graft, levator plication, and perineal repair), and obliterative prolapse repairs (including colpocleisis with hysterectomy, colpocleisis without hysterectomy, and colpocleisis of the vaginal vault). Each of these terms is clearly defined in this document including the required steps of the procedure, surgical variations, and recommendations for procedural terminology.

Surgery for Posterior Compartment Vaginal Prolapse: Graft Augmented Repair

Posterior compartment vaginal prolapse can be approached with multiple surgical techniques, including transvaginally, transperineally, and transanally, repaired with either native tissue or with the addition of an augment. Augment material for posterior compartment prolapse includes biologic graft (dermal, porcine submucosal), absorbable mesh (Vicryl polyglactin), or nonabsorbable synthetic mesh (polypropylene). Anatomic success rates for posterior compartment repair with augment has ranged from 54% to 92%. Augmented posterior compartment repair has not been shown to have superior outcome to native tissue repair. The focus of this article is on the transvaginal approach comparing native tissue repair with graft or mesh augmented repair.

A retrospective analysis of the effectiveness of anterior pelvic organ prolapse repair with Prolift versus Elevate vaginal mesh

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of anterior pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair using Prolift (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) or Elevate (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA) vaginal mesh at 12 months of follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective study was undertaken using the records for the first 50 Prolift procedures in 2007-2009 and the first 50 Elevate procedures in 2013-2015 performed at a tertiary urogynecology unit in Lisbon, Portugal. Postoperative follow-up occurred at 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was surgical efficacy using subjective and objective measures (vaginal bulge symptoms and POP quantification system according to the Weber criteria, respectively) at 12 months.

RESULTS

Improvement according to the Weber criteria was noted for 10 (25%) of 40 women in the Prolift group and 21 (48%) of 44 in the Elevate group at 12 months (P=0.032). Additionally, the Ba point was higher with Elevate than with Prolift (-2.2 ± 1.1 vs -1.5 ± 1.5; P=0.031). Vaginal bulge symptoms were reported at 12 months by 7 (18%) women in the Prolift group and 3 (7%) in the Elevate group (P=0.021).

CONCLUSION

Differences in anatomic results were apparent between the two vaginal mesh groups 12 months after surgery.