Search

Introduction and hypothesis: Vaginal prolapse mesh may effectively restore vaginal anatomy. The aim of this study was to investigate how the in vivo mesh position correlates to clinical outcomes. Methods: Seventy-one women operated on using Uphold mesh for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP-Q, C ≥ stage II) were examined 5 years after surgery by introital-perineal 2D ultrasound in a midsagittal plane at rest and Valsalva. The horizontal line and pubis symphysis were considered the reference for all measures. Ultrasound measures were statistically compared to clinical outcomes: POP-Q, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and subscales [Pelvic Organ Distress Inventory (PODI-6), and Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6)] and the VAS scale for pain. Results: Original mesh length was preserved by 86% and correlated to improved pain as estimated by VAS scale (r 0.321). Valsalva was associated with a lowering of the superior and inferior mesh margins by 7.3 and 6.1 mm, respectively (p < 0.001) but a reduction of total mesh length by only 1 mm (30.2 ± 5.2 to 29.2 ± 4.7 mm, p < 0.001). Mobility of the anterior vaginal wall (bladder neck and midurethra) at Valsalva was parallel to downward movement of the mesh inferior margin (r 0.346 and 0.314) but inversely correlated to total UDI-6 (r − 0.254 and − 0.263). Mobility of the midurethra was inversely correlated to bladder emptying (PFDI-20 Question 19, r − 0.245). Conclusions: Five years after surgery, preserved original length of the mesh with apical support was correlated to improved anatomical and patient-reported outcomes. Mesh support to the vaginal apex was associated with improved bladder emptying and total urinary distress outcomes but not stress urinary incontinence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare long-term effects of high-volume surgery at a single-center to multicenter use when using a mesh-capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair. Methods: Five years after surgery 101 (88%) at the single center were compared with 164 (81.2%) in the multicenter trial. Outcome measurements included clinical examination, prolapse-specific symptom questionnaires [Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire—short form (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)] and pain estimation by VAS (0–10). Results: Optimal apical segment outcome was 95% in the single- compared to 83.3% in the multicenter study (p < 0.001). POP recurrence in the anterior and posterior walls (POP-Q, Ba and Bp ≥ 0) was more common at the multicenter as compared to the single center [(19.8% vs 5.4%) and (26% vs 2.7%), (p < 0.001)]. Reoperations for POP and mesh-related complications were more frequent in the multicenter study [31/202 (15.3%) vs 7/116 (6.1%), p < 0.001]. Total PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 scores were comparable between the cohorts. There were no significant differences in overall pain scores in-between the cohorts during follow-up. At the single center, 1/81 patients (1.2%) had VAS 7/10, i.e. severe pain, as compared to 3/131 (2.3%) in the multicenter study (p = 0.277). Conclusions: Despite the high objective and subjective long-term effectiveness of the procedure in both regular use, and at a high-volume center, centralizing the use of a standardized capturing-device guided transvaginal mesh for POP repair reduced secondary interventions by more than half. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective was to assess safety and clinical outcomes in women operated on using the Uphold™ Lite Vaginal Support System. Methods: We carried out a 1-year, multicenter, prospective, single cohort study of 207 women with symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage ≥2 apical pelvic organ prolapse, with or without concomitant anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Safety data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. Anatomical outcome was assessed by the POP-Q and subjective outcomes by the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory after 2 months and 1 year using a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance. Pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale. Results: The overall rate of serious complications was 4.3 % (9 out of 207 patients), including 3 patients with bladder perforations, 1 with bleeding >1,000 ml, 2 who had undergone re-operations with complete mesh removal because of pain, and 3 surgical interventions during follow-up because of mesh exposure. POP-Q stage ≤1 after 1 year was 94 % and subjective symptom relief was reported by 91 % of patients ( p < 0.001). Pain after 2 months and 1 year was 60 % lower compared with the preoperative mean ( p < 0.001). Minor complications occurred in 20 women (9.7 %) and were dominated by lower urinary tract dysfunction. No predisposing risk factors for complications were found. Conclusions: The Uphold™ Lite procedure in women with apical pelvic organ prolapse provided satisfactory restoration of vaginal topography and symptom relief. However, serious complication rates were largely comparable with those of other transvaginal mesh kits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: The optimal surgery for lateral defects is not well defined. Our objective was to assess the effects of anterior trocar-guided transvaginal mesh repair versus anterior colporrhaphy in women with lateral defects. Methods: This subanalysis from a randomized controlled trial of mesh kit versus anterior colporrhaphy assessed 99 patient diagnosed at baseline with lateral defects in the anterior vaginal wall. Thirty-nine patients underwent anterior colporrhaphy and 60 anterior trocar-guided transvaginal mesh surgery. Results: One year after surgery, a persistent lateral defect was significantly more common after colporrhaphy compared with transvaginal mesh [11/32 (34.4 %) vs 1/42 (2.4 %), risk ratio (RR) 14.4, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.0-106.1; P < 0.001)] However, there were no significant differences between treatment groups with regard to subjective symptoms as reflected by the overall Urogenital Distress Inventory scores, with mean difference from baseline 37.3 ± 50.6 in the colporrhaphy group vs 39.0 ± 45.8 in the mesh group ( p = 0.61). Conclusions: Use of a transvaginal mesh kit increases the odds for anatomical correction of lateral defects compared with anterior colporrhaphy but does not necessarily improve lower urinary tract symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]