Search

Objective: To compare the surgical outcomes 12 months after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy performed with porcine dermis and the current gold standard of polypropylene mesh., Methods: Patients scheduled for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy were eligible for this randomized controlled trial. Both our clinical research nurse and the patients were blinded as to which material was used. Our primary end point was objective anatomic cure defined as no pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) points Stage 2 or greater at any postoperative interval. Our sample size calculation called for 57 patients in each group to achieve 90% power to detect a 23% difference in objective anatomic cure at 12 months (α=0.05). Our secondary end point was clinical cure. Any patient with a POP-Q point greater than zero, or Point C less than or equal to -5, or any complaints of prolapse symptoms whatsoever on Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 or Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, Short Form 7, or reoperation for prolapse were considered "clinical failures"; the rest were "clinical cures." Statistical comparisons were performed using the χ or independent samples t test as appropriate., Results: As expected, there were no preoperative differences between the porcine (n=57) and mesh (n=58) groups. The 12-month objective anatomic cure rates for the porcine and mesh groups were 80.7% and 86.2%, respectively (P=.24), and the "clinical cure" rates for the porcine and mesh groups were 84.2% and 89.7%, respectively (P=.96). Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, Short Form 7 score improvements were significant for both groups with no differences found between groups. There were no major operative complications., Conclusions: There were similar outcomes in subjective or objective results 12 months after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy performed with either porcine dermis or polypropylene mesh., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00564083., Level of Evidence: I.

Objective: We sought to track objective and subjective outcomes ≥1 year after transvaginal mesh system to correct prolapse., Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort study of 120 women who received a transvaginal mesh procedure (Avaulta Solo, CR Bard Inc, Covington, GA). Outcomes were pelvic organ prolapse quantification values; Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, Short Form 20/Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, Short Form 7 scores; and a surgical satisfaction survey. "Surgical failure" was defined as pelvic organ prolapse quantification point >0, and/or any reports of vaginal bulge., Results: Of 120 patients, 116 (97%) were followed up for a mean of 14.4 months (range, 12-30). In all, 74 patients had only anterior mesh, 21 only posterior mesh, and 21 both meshes. Surgical cure rate was 81%. Surgical failure was more common if preoperative point C ≥+2 (35% vs 16%; P = .04). Mesh erosion and de novo pain occurred in 11.7% and 3.3%, respectively. Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, Short Form 20/Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, Short Form 7 scores improved (P < .01)., Conclusion: Objective and subjective improvements occurred at ≥1 year, yet failure rates were high when preoperative point C was ≥+2., (Copyright © 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)