Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 12/2017

01-12-2017 | Original Article

Evidence to justify retention of transvaginal mesh: comparison between laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and transvaginal Elevate™ mesh

Authors: Valérie To, Pattaya Hengrasmee, Alan Lam, Georgina Luscombe, Anna Lawless, Justin Lam

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 12/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To determine if laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) offers better apical support with a lower exposure rate than transvaginal mesh surgery with Elevate™.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients with apical prolapse (POP-Q point C ≥ −1) who underwent Elevate™ mesh repair (n = 146) with patients who underwent laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (n = 267).

Results

The sacral colpopexy group had a mean age of 59 years and a BMI of 25.7. Patients in the Elevate™ group were older, with a mean age of 63 and a BMI of 26.3. Most of the patients of both groups presented with pelvic organ prolapse stage III (LSC 73.8% and Elevate™ 87.0%) and their mean POP-Q point C were not significantly different (LSC 1.4 vs Elevate™ 1.2 cm). Operative time was longer in the LSC group (113 vs 91 min, p < 0.001), but estimated blood loss was lower (75 cm3 vs 137 cm3, p < 0.001). No difference in mesh exposure rate could be found between the two groups at one year (Elevate™ 0.7% vs LSC 2.6%, OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.10, p = 0.21). One-year objective cure rate, defined as no descent beyond the hymen, was 97.0% in the LSC group and 96.6% in the Elevate™ group (p = .81). The overall recurrence (objective, subjective recurrence or reoperation) was also not different between the groups (LSC 4.5% vs Elevate 4.8%, p = 0.89).

Conclusion

Transvaginal Elevate™ mesh delivers comparable apical support with a low exposure rate similar to that of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.
Literature
1.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014.
2.
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.CrossRefPubMed
3.
De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):3–17.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):377–84.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology. 2012;79(3):532–6.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, White DE, Harvie HS, Lowenstein L, et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):33–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Vandendriessche D, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Behal H, Cosson M. Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy learning curve on operative time, perioperative complications and short term results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;191:84–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):44–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Feiner B, Jelovsek JE, Maher C. Efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh kits in the treatment of prolapse of the vaginal apex: a systematic review. BJOG. 2009;116(1):15–24.CrossRefPubMed
11.
US Food and Drug Administration. UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: FDA safety communication. Washington, DC: FDA; 2011.
12.
Altman D, Mikkola TS, Bek KM, Rahkola-Soisalo P, Gunnarsson J, Engh ME, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse repair using the Uphold™ Vaginal Support System: a 1-year multicenter study. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(9):1337–45.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Lo TS, Bt Karim N, Cortes EF, Wu PY, Lin YH, Tan YL. Comparison between Elevate anterior/apical system and Perigee system in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: clinical and sonographic outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):391–400.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Rogowski A, Bienkowski P, Tarwacki D, Szafarowska M, Samochowiec J, Sienkiewicz-Jarosz H, et al. Retrospective comparison between the Prolift and Elevate anterior vaginal mesh procedures: 18-month clinical outcome. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(12):1815–20.CrossRefPubMed
15.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Parkes IL, Shveiky D. Sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal apical prolapse: evidence-based surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):546–57.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089–103.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Huang KH, Huang LY, Chu LC, Chuang FC, Wu MP, Kung FT. Evaluation of the single-incision Elevate system to treat pelvic organ prolapse: follow-up from 15 to 45 months. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(9):1341–6.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Moore RD, Mitchell GK, Miklos JR. Single-incision vaginal approach to treat cystocele and vault prolapse with an anterior wall mesh anchored apically to the sacrospinous ligaments. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(1):85–91.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Su TH, Lau HH, Huang WC, Hsieh CH, Chang RC, Su CH. Single-incision mesh repair versus traditional native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: results of a cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(7):901–8.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Jambusaria LH, Murphy M, Lucente VR. One-year functional and anatomic outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexy with mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(2):87–92.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):360.e1–7.CrossRef
23.
McDermott CD, Park J, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. Sacral colpopexy versus transvaginal mesh colpopexy in obese patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(5):461–7.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, Matthews C, Park AJ, Iglesia CB, et al. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;216(1):38.e1–11. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ajog.​2016.​08.​035.
25.
Larouche M, Merovitz L, Correa JA, Walter JE. Outcomes of trocar-guided Gynemesh PS™ versus single-incision trocarless Polyform™ transvaginal mesh procedures. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):71–7.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Descargues G, Collard P, Grise P. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: laparoscopic or vaginal sacrocolpopexy? Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2008;36(10):978–83.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evidence to justify retention of transvaginal mesh: comparison between laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and transvaginal Elevate™ mesh
Authors
Valérie To
Pattaya Hengrasmee
Alan Lam
Georgina Luscombe
Anna Lawless
Justin Lam
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3379-3

Other articles of this Issue 12/2017

International Urogynecology Journal 12/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Validation of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS) in two south- Asian languages

Original Article

Validation of the Sinhala translation of the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire for female lower urinary tract symptoms among women in Sri Lanka

Original Article

Physical activity and pelvic floor muscle training in patients with pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study

Original Article

Case distribution and complications of mid-urethral sling surgery in a Canadian city before and after the Health Canada advisory on pelvic floor mesh

Original Article

Validation of overactive bladder questionnaire (1-week recall version) in medically complex elderly patients with overactive bladder

Original Article

The optimal angle of the mediolateral episiotomy at crowning of the head during labor