Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial anatomical and subjective outcomes
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Vu, M.K., Letko, J., Jirschele, K. et al. Int Urogynecol J (2012) 23: 1753. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1780-5
- 557 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
Here we describe anatomic and quality of life (QOL) outcomes of an anterior and apical compartment prolapse repair involving a reduced mesh implant size and apex-only fixation.
One hundred and fifteen patients undergoing the repair at a single urogynecology center were assessed using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and inpatient chart reviews. A horizontal incision eliminated overlap with the mesh, and each sacrospinous ligament was approached anteriorly by blunt dissection. Recurrence was defined as apical (C), or anterior (Aa or Ba) ≥0, and secondary analyses were performed using POP-Q ≥ −1 as the anatomic threshold. Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI), Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaires (SSQ) and a dyspareunia symptom scale were analyzed pre- and postoperatively.
Fifty-three women with uterus in situ demonstrated a combined anterior–apical recurrence rate of 1.89 %, including no anterior (Ba ≥ −1) and one apical (C ≥ −1) recurrence. Forty-seven women undergoing repair for vault prolapse had recurrence rates ranging from 0 % in those with prior hysterectomy to 4.2 % in those undergoing concurrent hysterectomy. The rate of mesh exposure was 3/115 (2.6 %), including two in women with concurrent hysterectomy. Self-reported dyspareunia was more common preoperatively (13.4 %) than postoperatively (9.3 %). PFDI scores improved in all domains, and 93 % completing the SSQ reported they were satisfied and would choose the surgery again.
This technique resulted in successful outcomes within both anterior and apical compartments with a low rate of mesh complication, and no cases required mesh removal or hospital readmission. High rates of satisfaction and improved condition-specific QOL were observed.