Prolene mesh comparing with sacrospinal fixation in the treatment of genital prolapse in women. Prospective multicentre randomized study
Authors:
M. Halaška 1; O. Šottner 1; K. Maxová 1; L. Krofta 2; K. Švabík 3; T. Rittstein 4; M. Mlčoch 5; M. Krčmář 2; Michael Jiří Halaška 6; Z. Adamík 5; I. Malá 7; A. Martan 3; J. Feyereisl 2
Authors‘ workplace:
Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a FN Na Bulovce, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. M. Halaška, DrSc.
1; Ústav pro péči o matku a dítě, Praha, ředitel doc. MUDr. J. Feyereisl, CSc.
2; Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. A. Martan, DrSc.
3; Gynekologické oddělení Ústřední vojenské nemocnice, Praha, přednostka prim. MUDr. H. Kašpárková
4; Gynekologicko-porodnické oddělení Baťovy nemocnice, Zlín, přednosta prim. MUDr. Z. Adamík, PhD.
5; Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 2. LF UK a FN Motol, Praha, přednosta prof. MUDr. L. Rob, CSc.
6; Fakulta informatiky a statistiky VŠE, Praha, vedoucí doc. RNDr. L. Marek, CSc.
7
Published in:
Ceska Gynekol 2010; 75(2): 126-132
Overview
Objective:
Polypropylene mesh in the treatment of genital prolapse in women was introduced at the turn of the millennium with the rationale of decreasing surgical invasiveness, reinforcing weak tissues and to possibly complement insufficient surgical techniques. Prospective randomized studies comparing traditional and modern operations are lacking.
Subject:
Prospective multicentre randomized study.
Setting:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague.
Subject and method:
A prospective multicentre trial was approved by the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic and registered with the FDA planning to recruit 500 patients with vaginal prolapse, 18 years of age and over, undergoing surgery at 5 major urogynaecologic centres. The patients were divided into three groups according to prolapse predominance. The surgical techniques used were: anterior and posterior prolift, and randomly allocated total prolift or sacrospinous fixation. The examination setup included lower urinary tract ultrasound, MRI, POP-Q assessment and QoL questionnaires before surgery and six and 24 month after the surgery.
Conclusion:
Preliminary analysis of partial data of 225 women showed an acceptable rate of complications and a better success rate in the mesh groups, whereas operation time and blood loss was lower in the classical operation group. Quality of life questionnaires documented that all the methods used have comparably good results. The surgical techniques used are acceptable methods for pelvic organ prolapse repair with low complication rates and excellent impact on the subjective perception of the patient’s quality of life.
Key words:
prolapse, mesh, sacrospinous fixation, Prolift, Amreich, stress urinary incontinence.
Sources
1. Alperin, M., et al. Perioperative outcomes of the Prolift (R) pelvic floor repair systems following introduction to a urogynecology teaching service. Int Urogynecol J 2008, 19(12), p. 1617.
2. Altman, D., et al. Short-term outcome after transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2008, 19(6), p. 787.
3. Babalola, EO., et al. Utilization of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1965-2002. Int Urogynecol J 2008, 19(9), p. 1243.
4. Baessler, K., Maher, CF. Mesh augmentation during pelvic-floor reconstructive surgery: risks and benefits. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2006, 18(5), p. 560.
5. Barber, MD., et al. Accuracy of clinical assessment of paravaginal defects in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999, 181(1), p. 87.
6. Blandon, RE., et al. Complications from vaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol 20, 2009, p. 523–531.
7. Boukerrou, M., et al. An MRI comparison of anatomical changes related to surgical treatment of prolapse by vaginal or abdominal route. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005, 121(2), p. 220.
8. Bump, RC., et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 175(1), p. 10.
9. Cruikshank, SH., Kovac, SR. Anterior vaginal wall culdeplasty at vaginal hysterectomy to prevent posthysterectomy anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996, 174(6), p. 1863.
10. Dwyer, PL., O’Reilly, BA. Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse with Atrium polypropylene mesh. 2004, 111(8), p. 831.
11. Fatton, B., et al. Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift (TM) technique) - a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J 2007, 18(7), p. 743.
12. Halaska, M. Fixation of the prolapsed vagina to the sacrospinous ligament after hysterectomy – the Amreich II-Richter vaginal fixation operation. Čes Gynek 1997, 62(6), 323.
13. Herschorn, S. The use of biological and synthetic materials in vaginal surgery for prolapse. 2007, 17, p. 408.
14. Hinoul, P., et al. A prospective study to evaluate the anatomic and functional outcome of a transobturator mesh kit (Prolift Anterior) for symptomatic cystocele repair. 2008, 15(5), p. 615.
15. Hurt, K. Research design strategy in medical and biostatistical studies. Čes Gynek 2004, 69(1), p. 71.
16. Jacquetin, B., Cosson, M. Complications of vaginal mesh: our experience. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009, 20(8), p. 893.
17. Karram, MM. “Evidence-based medicine” to support the surgical procedures we perform on patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009, 20(7), p. 763.
18. Maher, C., et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn 2008, 27(1), 3.
19. Maher, C., et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: A short version Cochrane review. 2008, 27(1), 3.
20. Maher, C., Schuessler, B. The need for randomised controlled trials in urogynaecology. Int Urogynecol J 2006, 17(4), p. 312.
21. Milani, R., et al. Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. 2005, 112(1), p. 107.
22. Murphy, M., Re Soc Gynecologic Surg Systematic. Clinical Practice Guidelines on Vaginal Graft Use From the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 112(5), p. 1123.
23. Natale, F., et al. High levator myorrhaphy for transvaginal suspension of the vaginal apex: long-term results. 2008, 180(5), p. 2047.
24. Natale, F., Weir, JM., Cervigni, M. Pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: which aspects remain controversial?. Int Urogynecol J 2006, 16(6), p. 407.
25. Neuman, M., Lavy, Y. Posterior intra-vaginal slingplasty for the treatment of vaginal apex prolapse: Medium-term results of 140 operations with a novel procedure. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008, 140(2), 230.
26. Nieminen, K., et al. Symptom resolution and sexual function after anterior vaginal wall repair with or without polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J 2008, 19(12), 1611.
27. Novara, G., Artibani, W. Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: current status and future perspectives. Int Urogynecol J 2005, 15(4), p. 256.
28. Olsen, AL., et al. Epidemilogy of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontence. Obstet Gynecol 1997, 4, p. 501.
29. Pulliam, SJ., et al. Use of synthetic mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery: a survey of attitudes and practice patterns of urogynecologists. Int Urogynecol J 2007, 18(12), p. 1405.
30. Reisenauer, C., et al. Anatomical conditions for pelvic floor reconstruction with polypropylene implant and its application for the treatment of vaginal prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007, 131(2), 214.
31. Richardson, AC., Edmonds, PB., Williams, NL. Treatment of stress urinary incontinence due to paravaginal fascial defect. Obstet Gynecol 1981, 57(3), 357.
32. Rogers, RG., et al. A short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2003, 14(3), p. 164.
33. Sentilhes, L., et al. Midterm follow-up of high-grade genital prolapse repair by the trans-obturator and infracoccygeal hammock procedure after hysterectomy. Eur Urol 2007, 51(4), p. 1065.
34. Shull, B., Karram, MM. Concerns regarding pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2005, 16(4), p. 251.
35. Sivaslioglu, AA., Unlubilgin, E., Dolen, I. A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. Int Urogynecol J 2008, 19(4), p. 467.
36. Sung, VW., et al. Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 112(5), 1131.
37. Ulmsten, U., Petros, P. Intravaginal slingplasty (IVS): an ambulatory surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1995, 29(1), 75.
Labels
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineArticle was published in
Czech Gynaecology
![Issue 2](https://www.prolekare.cz/media/cache/resolve/journal_issue/media/image_pdf/7c4ee8ec37bd15db5fdee749dd49cc8d.jpeg)
2010 Issue 2
Most read in this issue
- Current possibilities for diagnosis of vulvovaginal infection
- Significance of hysteroscopic resection in diagnostics of endometrial cancer
- Recommendation for hormone replacement therapy in postmenopause
- New Single-Incision Sling System MiniArc in treatment of the female stress urinary incontinence