Where to for pelvic organ prolapse treatment after the FDA pronouncements?
- 1.8k Downloads
With the publication of the updated US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communication in 2011 on the use of transvaginal placement of mesh for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) it is appropriate to now review recent studies of good quality on POP to assess the safety and effectiveness of treatment options and determine their place in management.
A systematic search for studies on the conservative and surgical management of POP published in the English literature between January 2002 and October 2012 was performed. Studies included were review articles, randomized controlled trials, prospective and relevant retrospective studies as well as conference abstracts. Selected articles were appraised by the authors regarding clinical relevance.
Prospective comparative studies show that vaginal pessaries constitute an effective and safe treatment for POP and should be offered as first treatment of choice in women with symptomatic POP. However, a pessary will have to be used for the patient’s lifetime. Abdominal sacral colpopexy is effective in treating apical prolapse with an acceptable benefit-risk ratio. This procedure should be balanced against the low but non-negligible risk of serious complications. The results of native tissue vaginal POP repair are better than previously thought with high patient satisfaction and acceptable reoperation rates. The insertion of mesh at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair reduces the awareness of prolapse as well as the risk of recurrent anterior prolapse. There is no difference in anatomic and subjective outcome when native tissue vaginal repairs are compared with multicompartment vaginal mesh. Mesh exposure is still a significant problem requiring surgical excision in approximately ≥10 % of cases. The ideal mesh has not yet been found necessitating more basic research into mesh properties and host response. Several studies indicate that greater surgical experience is correlated with fewer mesh complications. In women with uterovaginal prolapse uterine preservation is a feasible option which women should be offered. Randomized studies with long-term follow-up are advisable to establish the place of uterine preservation in POP surgery.
Over the last decade treatment of POP has been dominated by the use of mesh. Conservative treatment is the first option in women with POP. Surgical repair with or without mesh generally results in good short-term objective and functional outcomes. However, basic research into mesh properties with host response and comparative studies with long-term follow-up are urgently needed.
KeywordsPelvic organ prolapse (POP) Conservative management of POP POP repair Vaginal surgery Transvaginal mesh Uterine preservation
Conflicts of interest
- 2.Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA Safety Communication: update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertandNotices/umc262435.htm
- 7.Ramsay S, Tu L (2012) Pessary use as a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 7Google Scholar
- 8.Lone F, Thakar R, Sultan AH, (2012) A one year prospective comparison of vaginal pessaries and surgery in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse using the validated ICIQ-VS questionnaire. IUGA 37th Annual Meeting. Abstract 77Google Scholar
- 9.DeLancey JO (1994) The anatomy of the pelvic floor. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 6:313–316Google Scholar
- 10.Brubaker L, ICI Committee 15 et al (2009) Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI) 4:1273–1320Google Scholar
- 15.Rondini C, Braun HF, Alvarez J et al (2011) Prospective randomized study comparing high uterosacral vault suspension vs. abdominal sacral colpopexy for the correction of apical defects and vaginal vault prolapse. 36th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 88Google Scholar
- 16.Pakbaz M, Mogren I, Löfgren M (2009) Outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse: a population-based, retrospective, cross-sectional study of patient perceptions of results including sexual activity, urinary symptoms, and provided care. BMC Womens Health 9:9. Available via http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/9/9/prepub PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Detollenaere RJ, Den Boon J, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME, van Eijndhoven HW (2012) Trends in surgical management of uterovaginal prolapse and uterine descent in the Netherlands. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 157Google Scholar
- 24.Dällenbach P, Jungo Nancoz CJ, Eperon I, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M (2012) Incidence and risk factors for reoperation of surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23:35–41Google Scholar
- 29.Milani AL, Hinoul P, Gauld J et al (2012) Medium term clinical outcomes following trocar guided mesh repair of vaginal prolapse using partially absorbable mesh. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 81Google Scholar
- 30.Stanford EJ, Moore RD, Roovers JP et al (2012) A prospective multi-center clinical trial evaluating Elevate Anterior and Apical in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: two year follow-up. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstracts 42, 83Google Scholar
- 32.Schmid C, Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener C (2012) Cochrane review; surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 6Google Scholar
- 36.Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Mannaerts GH, van der Weiden RM, Kluivers KB, Milani AL (2012) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with bone anchor fixation versus total vaginal mesh for vault prolapse: comparison of cohorts. Thesis, K.U. Nijmegen, pp 105–119Google Scholar
- 42.de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MIJ, Vierhout ME (2009) The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:1313–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Thompson JD, Rock JA (1992) Te Linde’s operative gynecology, 7th edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 842–846Google Scholar
- 52.Sederl J (1959) Zur Operation des Prolapses der blind endigenden Scheiden. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 18:824–828Google Scholar
- 62.Nichols DH (1992) Enterocele and massive eversion of the vagina, Chap. 32. In Te Linde’s operative gynecologyGoogle Scholar
- 63.Miller NF (1927) A new method of correcting complete eversion of the vagina with and without complete prolapse; report of 2 cases. Surg Gynecol Obstet 44:550–555Google Scholar
- 67.Lim YN, Rosamilia A, Dwyer PL et al (2012) Randomised controlled trial of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse treatment with extraperitoneal vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension with anterior mesh reinforcement vs. sacrocolpopexy. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 5Google Scholar
- 75.Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH (2011) Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG 118:1518–1527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 90.Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM et al (2011) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. In: The Cochrane Library, issue 2, WileyGoogle Scholar