Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of two trocar-guided trans-vaginal mesh systems for repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to compare failure and complication rates in patients who underwent a trocar-guided vaginal mesh repair with either a non-absorbable or a partially absorbable mesh.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive women undergoing either non-absorbable or partially absorbable mesh for symptomatic stage 2 prolapse or higher were evaluated at 12 months. Outcome measures included objective and subjective failure rates, patient’s satisfaction, complications and perioperative outcomes.

Results

Five hundred and sixty-nine women (347 with non-absorbable mesh, 222 with partially absorbable mesh) were included. Failure rates were similar in the two groups; the re-operation rate in the untreated compartments was higher in the non-absorbable mesh group compared with the partially absorbable mesh group (5 % vs 1 %). Mesh exposure rate in the non-absorbable mesh group was 12 % and in the partially absorbable mesh group it was 5 %. Other complication and patient satisfaction rates were similar.

Conclusions

Non-absorbable and partially absorbable mesh demonstrated similar outcome rates at 12 months. The risk of reoperation was lower for partially absorbable mesh. The mesh exposure rate was significantly lower for the partially absorbable mesh group compared with the non-absorbable mesh group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

POP-Q:

Pelvic organ prolapse quantification

SUI:

Stress urinary incontinence

UUI:

Urgency urinary incontinence

NIH:

National Institutes of Health

References

  1. Digesu GA, Chaliha C, Salvatore S, Hutchings A, Khullar V (2005) The relationship of vaginal prolapse severity to symptoms and quality of life. BJOG 112(7):971–976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N (2010) Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 116(5):1096–1100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. De Boer TA, Slieker-Ten Hove MC, Burger CW, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME (2011) The prevalence and factors associated with previous surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and/or urinary incontinence in a cross-sectional study in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158(2):343–349

    Google Scholar 

  4. Denman MA, Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Smith V, Edwards SR, Clark AL (2008) Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(5):555.e1–555.e5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):891–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2 Pt 1):242–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Feiner B, O’Rourke P, Maher C (2012) A prospective comparison of two commercial mesh kits in the management of anterior vaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(3):279–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Long CY, Hsu CS, Jang MY, Liu CM, Chiang PH, Tsai EM (2011) Comparison of clinical outcome and urodynamic findings using “Perigee and/or Apogee” versus “Prolift anterior and/or posterior” system devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 22(2):233–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lensen EJ, Withagen MI, Stoutjesdijk JA, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME (2012) The use of synthetic mesh in vaginal prolapse surgery: a survey of Dutch urogynaecologists. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 162(1):113–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cobb WS, Burns JM, Peindl RD, Carbonell AM, Matthews BD, Kercher KW et al (2006) Textile analysis of heavy weight, mid-weight, and light weight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res 136(1):1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schug-Pass C, Tamme C, Sommerer F, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Kockerling F (2008) A lightweight, partially absorbable mesh (Ultrapro) for endoscopic hernia repair: experimental biocompatibility results obtained with a porcine model. Surg Endosc 22(4):1100–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ozog Y, Mazza E, De Ridder D, Deprest J (2012) Biomechanical effects of polyglecaprone fibers in a polypropylene mesh after abdominal and rectovaginal implantation in a rabbit. Int Urogynecol J 23(10):1397–1402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Milani AL, Hinoul P, Gauld JM, Sikirica V, van Drie D, Cosson M et al (2011) Trocar-guided mesh repair of vaginal prolapse using partially absorbable mesh: 1 year outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(1):74.e1–74.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD (2004) Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(5):1533–1538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Salvatore S, Athanasiou S, Digesu GA, Soligo M, Sotiropoulou M, Serati M et al (2009) Identification of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence. Neurourol Urodyn 28(4):301–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)–a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(7):743–752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1):10–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Van der Vaart CH, de Leeuw JR, Roovers JP, Heintz AP (2003) Measuring health-related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: the urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire revisited. Neurourol Urodyn 22(2):97–104

    Google Scholar 

  19. Milani AL, Withagen MI, Vierhout ME (2012) Outcomes and predictors of failure of trocar-guided vaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(5):440.e1–440.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z et al (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):600–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Milani AL, Withagen MI, Vierhout ME (2009) Trocar-guided total tension-free vaginal mesh repair of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(10):1203–1211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lensen EJ, Withagen MI, Kluivers KB, Milani AL, Vierhout ME (2012) Urinary incontinence after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn doi: 10.1002/nau.22327

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones KA, Feola A, Meyn L, Abramowitch SD, Moalli PA (2009) Tensile properties of commonly used prolapse meshes. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(7):847–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Hendriks JC, Kluivers KB, Milani AL (2011) Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet Gynecol 118(3):629–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moore RD, Lukban JC (2012) Comparison of vaginal mesh extrusion rates between a lightweight type I polypropylene mesh versus heavier mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(10):1379–1386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Milani AL, Hinoul P, Gauld JM, Jones PC, Reisenauer C, Lobodasch K et al (2012) Medium-term clinical outcomes following trocar-guided mesh repair of vaginal prolapse using partially absorbable mesh. International Urogynecological Association, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  27. Achtari C, Hiscock R, O’Reilly BA, Schierlitz L, Dwyer PL (2005) Risk factors for mesh erosion after transvaginal surgery using polypropylene (Atrium) or composite polypropylene/polyglactin 910 (Vypro II) mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16(5):389–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Collinet P, Belot F, Debodinance P, Ha Duc E, Lucot JP, Cosson M (2006) Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(4):315–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Milani AL (2010) Does trocar-guided tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift) repair provoke prolapse of the unaffected compartments? Int Urogynecol J 21(3):271–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Withagen MI, Milani AL, de Leeuw JW, Vierhout ME (2012) Development of de novo prolapse in untreated vaginal compartments after prolapse repair with and without mesh: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 119(3):354–360

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J, Lim J, Leong A, Krause H et al (2009) Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 116(10):1380–1386

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaufman Y, Singh SS, Alturki H, Lam A (2011) Age and sexual activity are risk factors for mesh exposure following transvaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J 22(3):307–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Conflict of interest/disclaimers

Dr. Milani had a consultancy agreement with Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology. Drs. Withagen and Milani were on the speaker’s bureau of Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology in 2006–2010. Drs. Withagen and Vierhout received an unrestricted educational grant from Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology in 2005. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology (the manufacturer of the Prolift and Prolift+M) had no influence over the design or the execution of the study. Also, no funding was obtained for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, 791, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    E. J. M. Lensen, M. I. J. Withagen, K. B. Kluivers & M. E. Vierhout

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Reinier de Graaf Group, Delft, The Netherlands

    A. L. Milani

Authors
  1. E. J. M. Lensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. I. J. Withagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. B. Kluivers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. L. Milani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. E. Vierhout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. J. M. Lensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lensen, E.J.M., Withagen, M.I.J., Kluivers, K.B. et al. Comparison of two trocar-guided trans-vaginal mesh systems for repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urogynecol J 24, 1723–1731 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2098-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2098-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation