Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the porcine dermis graft InteXen® in three-compartment transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim was to assess the efficacy of three-compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) vaginal repair using the InteXen® biocompatible porcine dermal graft as compared to traditional colporrhaphy with sacrospinous ligament suspension.

Methods

Preoperative, operative, postoperative and follow-up data were collected retrospectively. Objective recurrence was defined as POP quantification ≥ stage II and subjective recurrence as a symptomatic bulge.

Results

Each group consisted of 63 patients. Surgery time was longer using InteXen® (72 ± 24.5 vs 55 ± 23.5 min, p = 0.0002). Length of hospital stay (4.6 ± 1.6 vs 4.9 ± 2.1 days, p = 0.34) as well as duration of follow-up (37.1 vs 35.7 months, p = 0.45) were equivalent between the two groups. No case of mesh erosion or infection was noted. The objective (17% vs 8%, p = 0.12) and subjective recurrence rates (13% vs 5%, p = 0.12) between the two groups were not statistically different.

Conclusions

InteXen® was well tolerated but had similar efficacy to traditional colporrhaphy and sacrospinous ligament suspension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

Xen:

Group of patients treated with InteXen®

Trad:

Group of patients treated with traditional colporrhaphy and sacrospinous ligament suspension

POP-Q:

Pelvic organ prolapse quantification

TOT:

Transobturator tape

BMI:

Body mass index

References

  1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89(4):501–563

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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(3):437–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Diana M, Zoppe C, Mastrangeli B (2000) Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse with abdominal sacral colpopexy using prolene mesh. Am J Surg 179(2):126–128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CMA, Adams EJ, Hagen S (2006) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women (Cochrane review). Cochrane Library, issue 2

  5. 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 175:1472–1475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gauruder-Burmester A, Koutouzidou P, Rohne J, Gronewold M, Tunn R (2007) Follow-up after polypropylene mesh repair of anterior and posterior compartments in patients with recurrent prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(9):1059–1064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. David-Montefiore E, Barranger E, Dubernard G, Detchev R, Nizard V, Daraï E (2005) Treatment of genital prolapse by hammock using porcine skin collagen implant (Pelvicol®). Urology 66(6):1314–1318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Daraï E, Coutant C, Rouzier R, Ballester M, David-Montefiore E, Apfelbaum D (2009) Genital prolapse repair using porcine skin implant and bilateral sacrospinous fixation: midterm functional outcome and quality-of-life assessment. Urology 73(2):245–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Winters JC (2006) Intexen tissue processing and laboratory study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:S34–S38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mahdy A, Elmissiry M, Ghoniem G (2008) The outcome of transobturator cystocele repair using biocompatible porcine dermis graft: our experience with 32 cases. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1647–1652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gomelsky A, Rudy DC, Dmochowski RR (2004) Porcine dermis interposition graft for repair of high grade anterior compartment defects with or without concomitant pelvic organ prolapse procedures. J Urol 171:1581–1584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Leboeuf L, Miles RA, Kim SS, Gousse AE (2004) Grade 4 cystocele repair using four-defect repair and porcine xenograft acellular matrix (Pelvicol®): outcome measures using SEAPI. Urology 64(2):282–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Botros SM, Sand PK, Beaumont JL, Abramov Y, Miller JJ, Goldberg RP (2009) Arcus-anchored acellular dermal graft compared to anterior colporrhaphy for stage II cystoceles and beyond. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(10):1265–1271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F, Magatti F, Riva D, Kocjancic E (2007) Porcine skin collagen implants to prevent anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence: a multicenter, randomized study. J Urol 177(1):192–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, Kwon C, Koduri S, Beaumont JL, Abramov Y, Sand PK (2005) A prospective randomized trial using solvent dehydrated fascia latta for the prevention of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1649–1654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paraiso M, Barber M, Muir T, Walters M (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1762–1771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Handel LN, Frenkl TL, Kim YH (2007) Results of cystocele repair: a comparison of traditional anterior colporrhaphy, polypropylene mesh and porcine dermis. J Urol 178:153–156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110(2 Pt 2):455–462

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ganj FA, Ibeanu OA, Bedestani A, Nolan TE, Chesson RR (2009) Complications of transvaginal monofilament polypropylene mesh in pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(8):919–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Collinet P, Belot F, Debodinance P, Ha Duc E, Lucot JP, Cosson M (2006) Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:315–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cosson M, Debodinance P, Boukerrou M, Chauvet MP, Lobry P, Crépin G, Ego A (2003) Mechanical properties of synthetic implants used in the repair of prolapse and urinary incontinence in women: which is the ideal material? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 14(3):169–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dwyer PL (2006) Evolution of biological and synthetic grafts in reconstructive pelvic surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:S10–S15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, MacLennan G, Bain C, Fraser C, Burr J (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 115:1350–1361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Raalte HM, Lucente VR, Molden SM, Haaf R, Murphy M (2008) One-year anatomic and quality-of-life outcomes after the Prolift procedure for treatment of post-hysterectomy prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(6):694.e1–694.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, DeLancey JOL (2006) The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1438–1443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecologic Surgery, Besancon University Medical Centre, 8 Mai 1945 Avenue, 25000, Besancon, France

    Rajeev Ramanah, Julian Mairot, Robert Maillet & Didier Riethmuller

  2. Department of Medical Statistics, Besancon University Medical Centre, Fleming Boulevard, 25000, Besancon, France

    Marie-Caroline Clement

  3. Department of Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation, Besancon University Medical Centre, Fleming Boulevard, 25000, Besancon, France

    Bernard Parratte

Authors
  1. Rajeev Ramanah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Mairot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie-Caroline Clement
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bernard Parratte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert Maillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Didier Riethmuller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajeev Ramanah.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramanah, R., Mairot, J., Clement, MC. et al. Evaluating the porcine dermis graft InteXen® in three-compartment transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J 21, 1151–1156 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1153-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1153-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation