Outcomes of trocar-guided Gynemesh PS™ versus single-incision trocarless Polyform™ transvaginal mesh procedures
- First Online:
- 242 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
The aim of the study was to compare rates of success, mesh exposure, and surgical re-intervention after trocar-guided Gynemesh PS™ and trocarless Polyform™ transvaginal mesh procedures.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all transvaginal mesh procedures performed at our centers between January 2008 and May 2012. Multiple logistic regression models were used to explore the binary outcomes of objective and subjective success rates, as well as mesh exposure and re-intervention rates, between the two procedures after adjustment for patient’s age, parity, body mass index, smoking status, previous hysterectomy, previous prolapse surgery, and follow-up time.
We included 103 transvaginal mesh procedures (47 trocar-guided Gynemesh PS™ and 56 trocarless Polyform™). In both groups, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scores were significantly improved after the procedure. Median follow-up was 340 days and interquartile range (IQR) 152–644. Objective success rates were 55.3 % (26/47) in the trocar group and 60.7 % (34/56) in the trocarless group (p = 0.9), whereas subjective success was 83.0 % (39/47) and 94.6 % (53/56), respectively (p = 0.1). The adjusted odds of developing mesh exposure were significantly less after trocarless transvaginal mesh procedures compared to trocar-guided ones [odds ratio (OR) 0.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.03–0.97]. Surgical re-interventions, aimed mostly at treating recurrent prolapse, mesh exposure, and latent stress urinary incontinence, were also significantly less frequent after trocarless procedures [5 patients (8.9 %) requiring re-intervention versus 15 (31.9 %), respectively, adjusted OR 0.15, 95 % CI 0.04–0.60].
Trocar-guided Gynemesh PS™ and trocarless Polyform™ transvaginal mesh systems result in similar objective and subjective success rates. The newer Polyform™ mesh results in significantly fewer mesh exposures and surgical re-interventions.
KeywordsPelvic floor repair Polypropylene mesh Sacrospinous ligament suspension Single-incision Surgical mesh Transvaginal mesh
- 1.FDA (2008) FDA Public Health Notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm. Accessed 22 Mar 2013
- 2.FDA (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/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed 22 Mar 2013
- 10.Stanford EJ, Moore RD, Roovers JP, Courtieu C, Lukban JC, Bataller E, Liedl B, Sutherland SE (2013) Elevate anterior/apical: 12-month data showing safety and efficacy in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19(2):79–83. doi:10.1097/SPV.0b013e318278cc29 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Allison PD (1999) Logistic regression using the SAS system: theory and application. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
- 21.Withagen MI, Milani AL, de Leeuw JW, Vierhout ME (2012) Development of de novo prolapse in untreated vaginal compartments after prolapse repair with and without mesh: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 119(3):354–360. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03231.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.De Landsheere L, Ismail S, Lucot JP, Deken V, Foidart JM, Cosson M (2012) Surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair: retrospective single-center study including 524 patients with 3 years’ median follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(1):83.e1–83.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar