Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh
- 321 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
Few studies have compared the different approaches of mesh surgery in patients with severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP). In addition to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy (LSC-Cx), anterior vaginal mesh (AVM) may be an effective approach for correcting anterior vaginal wall associated with apical POP in women with advanced POP.
A randomised controlled trial (RCT; January 2011 to March 2016) including 120 patients (60/group) with advanced symptomatic POP, with a predominant anterior vaginal wall descent stage III or greater in combination with a stage II or III apical defect (uterus or vaginal vault). Patients underwent four visits: baseline, 3, 6 and12 months after surgery. The main outcome was anatomical success defined as anterior and posterior vaginal wall not descending beyond the hymen and vaginal apex descent no more than one third into the vagina. Secondary variables: PFDI, ICIQ-UI-SF, intraoperative variables, postoperative morbidity and complications.
Anatomical success was achieved with LSC-Cx in 79% and with AVM in 76% (NS). No statistically significant differences were found among POP-Q anterior vaginal wall points between groups, whereas better results were obtained with LSC-Cx in posterior vaginal wall points and total vaginal length. Intraoperative outcomes were similar in the two groups, except for operating time (78.05 min LSC-Cx vs 44.28 min AVM). There were no statistically significant differences related to de novo stress urinary incontinence and dyspareunia. Worse results were found in the CRADI-8 in the LSC-Cx group, owing to constipation. Late postoperative complications and reinterventions were similar in the two groups.
No differences were found in the anatomical correction of anterior and apical POP. The LSC-Cx group presented better correction of posterior vaginal wall defects and a longer total vaginal length.
KeywordsPelvic organ prolapse Prolapse recurrence Mesh surgery Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy/cervicopexy Anterior vaginal mesh
We would like to thank Dr Lluís Aragonès for his contribution to the statistical analyses.
The Elevate® Anterior and Apical kits were donated by AMS as a grant for the study without any other support or supervision.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
Dr Bataller was a consultant for AMS (Astora, women’s health). The remaining authors claim no conflicts of interest.
- 3.Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2016;389:(10067):381–92 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31596-3.
- 13.Vandendriessche D, Giraudet G, Lucot J-P, Behal H, Cosson M. Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy learning curve on operative time, perioperative complications and short term results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;191:84–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.05.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(2):165–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, et al. 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) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(1):2–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.21036.
- 22.Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. In: Maher C, editor. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, vol 2. Chichester: Wiley; 2016. p. CD012079. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012079.Google Scholar
- 23.Sanses TV, Shahryarinejad A, Molden S, et al. Anatomic outcomes of vaginal mesh procedure (Prolift) compared with uterosacral ligament suspension and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201(5):519.e1–519.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Lucot J-P, Fritel X, Debodinance P, et al. Étude randomisée comparant la promontofixation cœlioscopique à la chirurgie prothétique par voie vaginale pour le traitement des cystocèles : PROSPERE (PROSthetic PElvic organ prolapse REpair). J Gynécol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2013;42(4):334–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2013.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Fauconnier A, Cosson M, Debodinance P, Bader G, Youssef Azer Akladios C, Salet-Lizee D, et al. Anatomical and functional outcomes of vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic sacrocolpohysteropexy for cystocele repair: 12-month results of the PROSPERE (PROSthetic PElvic floor REpair) randomised controlled trial. Neurourol Urodynam Abstr. 2016;35(S1):S471.Google Scholar
- 26.Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, et al. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(1):38.e1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035.
- 28.Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B. Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift™ technique)—a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J. 2007;18(7):743–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0234-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.De Tayrac R, Gervaise A, Chauveaud A, Fernandez H. Tension-free polypropylene mesh for vaginal repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. J Reprod Med. 2005;50(2):75–80. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15755042.