International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 467–473

Long-term results of vaginal repairs with and without xenograft reinforcement

Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this paper is to study if xenograft reinforcement of vaginal repair reduces recurrence of prolapse.

Methods

Results 1–5 years after vaginal repair were studied in 41 cases with xenograft and in 82 matched controls without. Symptoms were evaluated by a validated questionnaire and anatomy by pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ).

Results

Significant more cases, 97% versus 81% controls, felt cured or much improved (p = 0.02); 11% of cases and 19% of controls had POP symptoms, POPQ > −1 was found in 31% cases and 24% controls. Defining recurrence as POPQ > −1 plus symptoms revealed recurrence in 3% of cases and 12% controls. None of the recurrence rates was significantly different for cases versus controls. No vaginal erosions were seen. Previous surgery was a significant risk factor with odds ratio 7.3 for another recurrence.

Conclusions

Recurrence rates defined by POPQ plus symptoms were low compared to literature. Xenograft reinforcement might improve results.

Keywords

Vaginal repair Xenograft Surgisis Pelvic organ prolapse Recurrent prolapse Definition of prolapse 

References

  1. 1.
    Swift S (2000) The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fornell E (2003) Prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence in women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:280–285Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tegerstedt G, Hammarström M (2004) Operation for pelvic organ prolapse: a follow-up study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83:758–763PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mouritsen L, Larsen JP (2003) Symptoms, bother and POPQ in women referred with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 14:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellerkmann M (2001) Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of POP. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1332–1338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Da Silva, Gurland B, Sleemi A, Levy G (2006) Posterior vaginal wall prolapse does not correlate with fecal symptoms or objective measures of anorectal function. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195(6):1742–1747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber AM (2001) The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol 12:178–186Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maher C, Baessler K, Glazerner CMA, Adams EJ, Hagen S (2004) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane database of systematic reviews Issue 4. Art.No.:CD004041. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub2
  9. 9.
    Baessler K, Maher C (2006) Mesh augmentation during pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: risks and benefits. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 18:560–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huebner M, Hsu Y, Fenner DE (2006) The use of graft material in vaginal pelvic floor surgery. Int J Obstet Gynecol 92:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milani R, Salvatore S, Soligo M, Pifarotti P, Meschia M, Cortese M (2005) Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 112:107–111Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chaliha C, Khalid U, Campagna L, Digesu GA, Ajay B, Khullar V (2006) SIS graft for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair—a case-controlled study. Int Urogynecol J 17:492–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Handel LN, Frenkl TL, Kim YH (2007) Results of cystocele repair: a comparison of traditional anterior colporrhaphy, polypropylene mesh and porcine dermis. J Urol 178:153–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wheeler TL, Richter HE, Duke AG, Burgio KL, Redden DT, Varner RE (2006) Outcomes with porcine graft placement in the anterior vaginal compartment in patients who undergo high vaginal uterosacral suspension and cystocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1486–1491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir T, Walters M (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomised trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1762–1771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altman D, Mellgren A, Zetterström (2005) Rectocele repair using biomaterial augmentation: current documentation and clinical experience. Obstet Gynecol Surv 60:753–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trabuco EC, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB (2007) Xenograft use in reconstructive pelvic surgery: a review of literature. Int Urogynecol J 18:555–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spence-Jones C, Kamm MA, Henry MM, Hudson CN (1994) Bowel dysfunction: a pathogenetic factor in uterovaginal prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:147–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jorgensen s, Hein HO, Gyntelberg F (1994) Heavy lifting at work and risk of genital prolapse and herniated lumbar disc in assistant nurses. Occup Med 44:47–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Swift SE, Pound T, Dias JK (2001) Case-control study of etiologic factors in the development of severe pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 12:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, Kuehl TJ (2000) A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1365–1373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hawkins E, Raajkumar S, Masood M (2008) Long-term patient satisfaction with prolapse surgery in general gynecology. Int Urogynecol J 19:1441–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I, Becerro A (2007) Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery: a review at 5 years after surgery. Int Urogynecol J 18:1317–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kapoor DS, Freeman RM (2009) Reoperation rate following prolapse surgery. Am I Obstet Gynecol 200(2):e15Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barber M (2005) Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 48(3):648–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Elkadry EA, Kenton KS, FitzGerald MP, Shott S, Brubaker L (2003) Patient-selected goals: a new perspective on surgical outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1551–1558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Norton P, Boyd C, Deak S (1992) Abnormal collagen ratios in women with genitourinary prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 11:2–4Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Claerhout F, Verbist G, Verbeken G, Konstantinovic M, De Ridder D, Deprest J (2008) Fate of collagen-based implants used in pelvic floor surgery: a 2 year follow-up study in a rabbit model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:94 e 1-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F, Magatti F, Riva F, Kocjancic E (2007) Porcine skin collagen implants to prevent anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence: a multicenter, randomised study. J Urol 177:192–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lone Mouritsen
    • 1
  • Manuela Kronschnabl
    • 1
  • Gunnar Lose
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Herlev HospitalUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations