International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp 1651–1661

Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT

  • R. de Tayrac
  • A. Cornille
  • G. Eglin
  • O. Guilbaud
  • A. Mansoor
  • S. Alonso
  • H. Fernandez
Original Article
  • 545 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To compare the efficacy of a collagen-coated polypropylene mesh and anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of stage 2 or more anterior vaginal wall prolapse.

Methods

Prospective, randomized, multicenter study conducted between April 2005 and December 2009. The principal endpoint was the recurrence rate of stage 2 or more anterior vaginal wall prolapse 12 months after surgery. Secondary endpoints consisted of functional results and mesh-related morbidity.

Results

One hundred and forty-seven patients were included, randomized and analyzed: 72 in the anterior colporrhaphy group and 75 in the mesh group. The anatomical success rate was significantly higher in the mesh group (89 %) than in the colporrhaphy group (64 %) (p = 0.0006). Anatomical and functional recurrence was also less frequent in the mesh group (31.3 % vs 52.2 %, p = 0.007). Two patients (2.8 %) were reoperated on in the colporrhaphy group for anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence. No significant difference was noted regarding minor complications. An erosion rate of 9.5 % was noted. De novo dyspareunia occurred in 1/14 patients in the colporrhaphy group and in 3/13 patients in the mesh group. An analysis of the quality of life questionnaires showed an overall improvement in both groups, with no statistical difference between them. Satisfaction rates were high in both groups (92 % in the colporrhaphy group and 96 % in the mesh group).

Conclusion

Trans-obturator Ugytex® mesh used to treat anterior vaginal wall prolapse gives better 1-year anatomical results than traditional anterior colporrhaphy, but with small a increase in morbidity in the mesh group.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Cystocele Vaginal surgery Polypropylene mesh Anterior colporrhaphy 

References

  1. 1.
    Walker GJ, Gunasekera P (2011) Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J 22:127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A et al (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:795–806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Samuelsson EC, Victor FT, Tibblin G et al (1999) Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:299–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG et al (2009) Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. Women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol 114:1278–1283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I et al (2002) Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:1160–1166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Handa VL, Garrett E, Hendrix S et al (2004) Progression and remission of pelvic organ prolapse: a longitudinal study of menopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:27–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K et al (2011) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J 22:1445–1457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 115:1350–1361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Julian TM (1996) The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe, recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1472–1475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J et al (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117:242–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I (2008) A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:467–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111:891–898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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(235):e1–e8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:1826–1836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    FDA Safety Communication: UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed 08 Aug 2011
  17. 17.
    De Tayrac R, Chauveaud-Lambling A, Fernandez D et al (2003) Quality of life instruments for women with pelvic organ prolapse. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 32:503–507Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF et al (2001) Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1388–1395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fatton B, Letouzey V, Lagrange E et al (2009) Validation of a French version of the short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 38:662–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haab F, Richard F, Amarenco G et al (2008) Comprehensive evaluation of bladder and urethral dysfunction symptoms: development and psychometric validation of the Urinary Symptom Profile (USP) questionnaire. Urology 71:646–656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE et al (2011) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22:3–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Tayrac R, Devoldere G, Renaudie J et al (2007) Prolapse repair by vaginal route using a new protected low-weight polypropylene mesh: 1-year functional and anatomical outcome in a prospective multicentre study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:251–256Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D et al (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 118:1518–1527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J et al (2009) Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 116:1380–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I et al (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114:600–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barber MD (2005) Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 48:648–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T et al (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110:455–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L et al (2011) Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 22:789–798CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huffaker RK, Muir TW, Rao A et al (2008) Histologic response of porcine collagen-coated and uncoated polypropylene grafts in a rabbit vagina model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(582):e1–e7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Tayrac R, Alves A, Therin M (2007) Collagen-coated vs noncoated low-weight polypropylene meshes in a sheep model for vaginal surgery. A pilot study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:513–520Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. de Tayrac
    • 1
    • 7
  • A. Cornille
    • 1
  • G. Eglin
    • 2
  • O. Guilbaud
    • 3
  • A. Mansoor
    • 4
  • S. Alonso
    • 5
  • H. Fernandez
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCaremeau University HospitalNimesFrance
  2. 2.Department of GynecologyClinique ChampeauBeziersFrance
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyChartres HospitalChartresFrance
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyIssoire HospitalIssoireFrance
  5. 5.Department of BiostatisticsCaremeau University HospitalNimesFrance
  6. 6.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyKremlin Bicêtre University HospitalKremlin BicêtreFrance
  7. 7.Service de Gynécologie-ObstétriqueHôpital CarémeauNimes Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations