Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 359–366 | Cite as

Operation for primary cystocele with anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes

  • Emil NüsslerEmail author
  • Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel
  • Mats Löfgren
  • Emil Karl Nüssler
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to compare the results of primary anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair, using standard anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh in a routine health care setting.

Methods

The study was based on prospectively collected data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery. All patients were operated on solely for primary, anterior vaginal wall prolapse between January 2006 and October 2013: 6,247 women had an anterior colporrhaphy, and in 356 a non-absorbable mesh was used. Data were collected from doctors and patients up to 1 year after surgery.

Results

The 1-year cure rate for the mesh group was superior to that of the colporrhaphy group with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.53 (CI 1.1–2.13), corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 13.5. Patient satisfaction, OR = 2.45 (CI 1.58–3.80), and patient improvement, OR 2.99 (CI 1.62–5.54), was also higher in the mesh group. However, patient-reported complications, OR = 1.51 (CI 1.15–1.98), and the incidence of persisting pain in the loin, OR = 3.58 (CI 2.32–5.52), were also higher in the mesh group as were surgeon-reported complications, OR = 2.27 (CI 1.77–2.91), bladder injuries, OR = 6.71 (CI 3.14–14.33), and re-operations within 12 months, OR = 6.87 (CI 3.68–12.80).

Conclusions

Mesh reinforcement, in primary anterior vaginal wall prolapse patients, enhanced the likelihood of anatomical success at 1 year after surgery. However, mesh implant was associated with a significantly higher incidence of bladder injury, reoperations, both patient- and surgeon-reported complications, more patient-reported pain and a longer hospital stay.

Keywords

Cystocele Colporrhaphy Non-absorbable mesh National register data Patient reported outcome 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.

Financial disclaimer

None.

Conflicts of interest

Emil Karl Nüssler is responsible for the register of prolapse surgery of the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery. Mats Löfgren is chairman of the National Register. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS (2008) Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:437–440. doi: 10.1007/s00192-007-0459-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maher C, Baessler K (2006) Surgical management of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: an evidencebased literature review. Int Urogynecol J 17:195–201. doi: 10.1007/s00192-005-1296-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber AM, Walter MD (1997) Anterior vaginal prolapse: review of anatomy and techniques of surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol 89(2):311–8. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(96)00322-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nüssler EK (2013) Use of implants in genital organ prolapse surgery Sweden 2006–2012. the Swedish Gyn-op register homepage. http://www.gynop.org/doc/ppt/Implants_NUGA2013_EN.pptx. Accessed 13 February 2014.
  6. 6.
    Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R (2006) Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 12:559–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 19:467–471. doi: 10.1007/s00192-007-0465-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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(12):1518–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03082.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tegerstedt G, Miedel A, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M (2005) A short-form questionnaire identified genital organ prolapse. J Clin Epidemiol 58:41–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ladfors MB, Lofgren ME, Gabriel B, Olsson JH (2002) Patient accept questionnaires integrated in clinical routine: a study by the Swedish national register for gynecological surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81:437–442. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.810511.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peterson TV, Karp RD, Aguilar VC, Davilla WG (2010) Primary versus recurrent prolapse surgery: differences in outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 21:483–488. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1057-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ek M, Tegerstedt G, Falconer C, Kjaeldgaard A, Rezapour M, Rudnicki M, Altman D (2010) Urodynamic assessment of anterior vaginal wall surgery: a randomized comparison between colporraphy and transvaginal mesh. Neurourol Urodyn 29(4):527–31. doi: 10.1002/nau.20811 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ACOG committee on Practice Bulletins: Gynecology (2007) ACOG practice bulletin no. 85: pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 110(3):717–29. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000263925.97887.72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barber MD (2005) Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 48(3):648–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL et al (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):600–9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee U, Raz S (2011) Emerging concepts for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: what is cure? Curr Urol Rep 12:62–67. doi: 10.1007/s11934-010-0160-2 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emil Nüssler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel
    • 2
  • Mats Löfgren
    • 3
  • Emil Karl Nüssler
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Health SciencesAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  3. 3.The National Quality Register of Gynecological SurgeryUmeå UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations