International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 1753–1761 | Cite as

Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial anatomical and subjective outcomes

  • Manhan K. Vu
  • Juraj Letko
  • Kelly Jirschele
  • Adam Gafni-Kane
  • Aimee Nguyen
  • Honyan Du
  • Roger P. Goldberg
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Cystocele Uterine prolapse Mesh Pelvic organ prolapse Uphold Quality of life 

Notes

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

References

  1. 1.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111:891–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber AM et al (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185(6):1299–1304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110:455–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldberg RP, Tomezsko JE, Winkler HA, Koduri S, Culligan PJ, Sand PK (2001) Anterior or posterior sacrospinous vaginal vault suspension: long-term anatomic and functional evaluation. Obstet Gynecol 98:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Tayrac R, Boileau L, Fara JF, Monneins F, Raini C, Costa P (2010) Bilateral anterior sacrospinous ligament suspension associated with a paravaginal repair with mesh: short-term clinical results of a pilot study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21(3):293–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Botros SM, Sand PK, Beaumont, Abramov Y, Miller JJ, Goldberg RP (2009) Arcus-anchored acellular dermal graft compared to anterior colporrhaphy for stage II cystoceles and beyond. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Dysfunct 20(10):1265–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, Spino C (2009) Pelvic floor disorders network. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114:600–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murphy M, Sternschuss G, Haff R, van Raalte H, Saltz S, Lucente V (2008) Quality of life and surgical satisfaction after vaginal reconstructive vs obliterative surgery for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(5):573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    White GR (1909) Cystocele. A radical cure by suturing lateral sulci of vagina to white line of pelvic fascia. JAMA 80(21):1707–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R (2003) Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(5):1261–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(3):235e1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen J, Burchette R (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111:891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    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, Part 1):242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. New England Journal of Medicine 364:1826–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lopes ED, Lemos NL, Carramao SS et al (2010) Transvaginal polypropylene mesh versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21(4):389–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Peterson JL, Shott S (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 116(2):293–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maher CF, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM (2011) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J 22(11):1445–57, Epub 2011 Sep 17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Obstet Gynecol 185(6):1299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW et al (2001) Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Obstet Gynecol 184(7):1357–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, DeLancey JO (2006) The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1438–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, Fitzgerald MP, Brubaker L (2006) Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1837–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lowder JL, Park AJ, Ellison R, Ghetti C, Moalli P, Zyczynski H, Weber AM (2008) The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 111(1):152–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco A, Weber AM, Cundiff GW, Fine P, Ghetti C, Brown MB (2008) Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 112(1):49–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, Zyczynski H (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104:805–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Whitehead WE, Bradley CS, Brown MB et al (2007) Gastrointestinal complications following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(1):78e1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manhan K. Vu
    • 1
    • 3
  • Juraj Letko
    • 1
  • Kelly Jirschele
    • 1
  • Adam Gafni-Kane
    • 1
  • Aimee Nguyen
    • 1
  • Honyan Du
    • 2
  • Roger P. Goldberg
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Chicago Pritzker School of MedicineNorthShore University HealthSystem Division of UrogynecologyEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Clinical and Research InformaticsNorthShore University HealthSystemEvanstonUSA
  3. 3.Fort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations