Advertisement

Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 238–243 | Cite as

So the First Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Failed…Now What?

  • Siobhan M. Hartigan
  • Ariana L. Smith
Stress Incontinence and Prolapse (S Reynolds, Section Editor)
  • 21 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Stress Incontinence and Prolapse

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common and a significant number of women will experience POP recurrence. This paper provides a summary of management options for recurrent POP.

Recent Findings

Vaginal and abdominal approaches to recurrent POP utilizing native tissues, previously placed mesh, or a new mesh implant are all reasonable options for repair. Choice of surgical approach should be individualized to the patient.

Summary

Without evidence from randomized controlled studies to help clinicians delineate the appropriate repair for each patient, there is still no perfect answer as to the best surgical treatment for recurrent POP. Similar to primary repairs, vaginal and abdominal approaches to recurrent POP utilizing either native tissues or polypropylene mesh (new or previously placed) are all reasonable options for repair. In the hands of an experienced pelvic reconstructive surgeon, complication rates from mesh implantation are limited while potential benefits of additional strength and durability are offered. Debate continues over the appropriate use of polypropylene mesh for pelvic reconstruction in women with prolapse; in the setting of recurrent bothersome prolapse mesh may offer a durable option.

Keywords

Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse Mesh Prolapse complications 

Abbreviations

ICS

International Continence Society

IUGA

International Urogynecological Association

POP

pelvic organ prolapse

POP-Q

Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

No disclosures for any contributing author.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(2):137–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winters JC, Smith AL, Krlin RM. Vaginal and abdominal reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters CA, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2016.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denman MA, Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Smith V, Edwards SR, Clark AL. Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):555 e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Ismail S, Duckett J, Rizk D, Sorinola O, Kammerer-Doak D, Contreras-Ortiz O, et al. Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(11):1619–32. Recently published international committee opinion paper that sumarizes available evidence on recurrent pelvic organ prolapse and provides guidance on management. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Swift S, Woodman P, O'Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):795–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, Athanasiou S, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(4):415–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I, Becerro A. Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery: a review at 5 years after surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(11):1317–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salvatore S, Athanasiou S, Digesu GA, Soligo M, Sotiropoulou M, Serati M, et al. Identification of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28(4):301–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(5):1533–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R. Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1261–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(3):437–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dallenbach P, Jungo Nancoz C, Eperon I, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M. Incidence and risk factors for reoperation of surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(1):35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oversand SH, Staff AC, Spydslaug AE, Svenningsen R, Borstad E. Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moen M, Noone M, Vassallo B. Anterior colporrhaphy: why surgeon performance is paramount. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(7):857–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C. Nordic transvaginal mesh G. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colombo M, Vitobello D, Proietti F, Milani R. Randomised comparison of Burch colposuspension versus anterior colporrhaphy in women with stress urinary incontinence and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. BJOG. 2000;107(4):544–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, Wu N, Pashos CL, Clemens JQ, et al. Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):981–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lavelle RS, Christie AL, Alhalabi F, Zimmern PE. Risk of prolapse recurrence after native tissue anterior vaginal suspension procedure with intermediate to long-term followup. J Urol. 2016;195(4 Pt 1):1014–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD004014. A cochrane database systematic review that summarizes safety and efficacy of surgical interventions for the management of anterior compartment prolapse. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mowat A, Maher D, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Maher C. Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3:CD012975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD012376. A cochrane database systematic review that summarizes safety and efficacy of surgical interventions for the management of apical vaginal prolapse. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jonsson Funk M, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Pate V, Wu JM. Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(8):1279–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Vaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration; July 2011 [Available from: http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:2157/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/UCM262760.pdf.
  26. 26.
    Tate SB, Blackwell L, Lorenz DJ, Steptoe MM, Culligan PJ. Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(2):137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    • 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. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD012079. A cochrane database systematic review that summarizes safety and efficacy of transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Toh VV, Bogne V, Bako A. Management of recurrent vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(1):29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet. 2007;369(9566):1027–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reid RI. Repair of recurrent prolapse. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;25(2):175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Norinho de Oliveira P, Bourdel N, Rabischong B, Canis M, Botchorishvili R. What to do with recurrent prolapse after vaginal mesh failure? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(2):161–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmid C, O'Rourke P, Maher C. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed transvaginal polypropylene mesh surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(5):763–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Linder BJ, Chow GK, Elliott DS. Long-term quality of life outcomes and retreatment rates after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Urol. 2015;22(12):1155–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bracken JN, Tran DH, Kuehl TJ, Larsen W, Yandell PM, Shull BL. A novel transvaginal approach to correct recurrent apical prolapse after failed sacral colpopexy: case series. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(10):1429–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Linder BJ, Gebhart JB, Occhino JA. Total colpocleisis: technical considerations. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(11):1767–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    DeLancey JO, Morley GW. Total colpocleisis for vaginal eversion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176(6):1228–32. discussion 32-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, Siddique S, Thompson P, Zyczynski H. Ann Weber for the pelvic floor disorders N. Colpocleisis: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(3):261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hoskey KA, Shippey SH, Handa VL. Surgical repair of recurrent prolapse after LeFort colpocleisis. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(3):371–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Curtiss N, Duckett J. A long-term cohort study of surgery for recurrent prolapse comparing mesh augmented anterior repairs to anterior colporrhaphy. Gynecol Surg. 2018;15(1):1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dallas KB, Rogo-Gupta L, Elliott CS. What impacts the all cause risk of reoperation after pelvic organ prolapse repair? A comparison of mesh and native tissue approaches in 110,329 women. J Urol. 2018.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nussler EK, Greisen S, Kesmodel US, Lofgren M, Bek KM, Glavind-Kristensen M. Operation for recurrent cystocele with anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh: patient reported outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1925–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Milani AL, Damoiseaux A, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, Withagen MIJ. Long-term outcome of vaginal mesh or native tissue in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):847–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wu PY, Chang CH, Shen MR, Chou CY, Yang YC, Huang YF. Seeking new surgical predictors of mesh exposure after transvaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(10):1547–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siobhan M. Hartigan
    • 1
  • Ariana L. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Pennsylvania Health SystemPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations