Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial anatomical and subjective outcomes
- 693 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.
KeywordsCystocele Uterine prolapse Mesh Pelvic organ prolapse Uphold Quality of life
Financial Disclosure/Conflict of interest
No financial support was received for this study. Dr. Goldberg is consultant for and receives royalties from Boston Scientific Corporation
- 11.Serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, October 2008, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm
- 14.Sivaslioglu A, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I (2008) A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. IntUrogynecol J 19:467–471Google Scholar
- 28.Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco A, Zyczynski H, Nager CW, Norton PA, Schaffer J, Brown M, Brubaker L (2008) Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(688):1–5Google Scholar