Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-07-2015 | Original Article

Medium-term comparison of uterus preservation versus hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse treatment with Prolift™ mesh

Authors: Li-Yi Huang, Li-Ching Chu, Hsin-ju Chiang, Fei-Chi Chuang, Fu-Tsai Kung, Kuan-Hui Huang

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 7/2015

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We conducted a medium-term assessment of clinical outcomes and complications after surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using Prolift™ mesh, and sought to determine whether concomitant hysterectomy clinically influenced the outcome of pelvic reconstruction in patients without a prior history of urogenital surgery.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with POP-Q stage 3/4 uterine prolapse at a tertiary referral urogynecology unit in South Taiwan who had undergone POP repair with Prolift mesh from May 2007 to July 2010 were identified by chart review. Concomitant hysterectomy was performed in 24 patients (hysterectomy group), and uterus-sparing surgery in 78 (uterus-sparing group) Preoperative and postoperative subjective assessments of urinary and prolapse symptoms, objective POP-Q score, urodynamic examination, and postoperative adverse events were compared between the groups.

Results

The mean follow-up periods were 25.7 months (range 6.2 – 73.1 months) and 31.7 months (range 6.0 – 78.4 months) in the concomitant hysterectomy and uterus-sparing groups, respectively. There were no between-group differences in functional and anatomic outcomes after surgery. No statistically significant differences were found in postoperative adverse events between the groups.

Conclusions

Pelvic reconstruction using Prolift with concomitant hysterectomy and uterus-sparing surgery have similar anatomic and functional results at 2.5 years. Therefore, we consider uterus-sparing surgery to be an alternative to hysterectomy in uterine prolapse repair.

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506PubMedCrossRef

Denman MA, Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Smith V, Edwards SR, Clark AL (2008) Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:555.e1–555.e5CrossRef

Feiner B, Jelovsek J, Maher C (2009) Efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh kits in the treatment of prolapse of the vaginal apex: a systematic review. BJOG 116:15–24PubMedCrossRef

Falagas ME, Velakoulis S, Iavazzo C, Athanasiou S (2007) Mesh-related infections after pelvic organ prolapse repair surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 134:147–156PubMedCrossRef

Margulies RU, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Fenner DE, McGuire EJ, Clemens JQ, DeLancey JO (2008) Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:678.e1–678.e4CrossRef

Jacquetin B, Hinoul P, Gauld J, Fatton B, Rosenthal C, Clavé H et al (2013) Total transvaginal mesh (TVM) technique for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a 5-year prospective follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J 24:1679–1686PubMedCrossRef

Neuman M, Lavy Y (2007) Conservation of the prolapsed uterus is a valid option: medium term results of a prospective comparative study with the posterior intravaginal slingoplasty operation. Int Urogynecol J 18:889–893CrossRef

Long C-Y, Hsu C-S, Jang M-Y, Liu C-M, Chiang P-H, Tsai E-M (2011) Comparison of clinical outcome and urodynamic findings using “Perigee and/or Apogee” versus “Prolift anterior and/or posterior” system devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 22:233–239PubMedCrossRef

McDermott CD, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS (2011) Surgical outcomes following total Prolift: colpopexy versus hysteropexy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 51:61–66PubMedCrossRef

10.

Haylen BT, De Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21:5–26PubMedCrossRef

11.

Khaja A, Winlove P, Waterfield M, Oriolowo A, Adekanmi OA, Freeman RM (2014) Is anatomical failure following anterior vaginal repair associated with weak native vaginal tissues? A biomechanical and immunohistochemical study. Int Urogynecol J 25:181–187PubMedCrossRef

12.

Weemhoff M, Vergeldt TF, Notten K, Serroyen J, Kampschoer PH, Roumen FJ (2012) Avulsion of puborectalis muscle and other risk factors for cystocele recurrence: a 2-year follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J 23:65–71PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

13.

Dwyer PL, O’Reilly BA (2004) Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse with Atrium polypropylene mesh. BJOG 111:831–836PubMedCrossRef

14.

Gadonneix P, Ercoli A, Salet-Lizée D, Cotelle O, Bolner B, Van Den Akker M, Villet R (2004) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with two separate meshes along the anterior and posterior vaginal walls for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11:29–35PubMedCrossRef

15.

Lo T-S (2010) One-year outcome of concurrent anterior and posterior transvaginal mesh surgery for treatment of advanced urogenital prolapse: case series. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17:473–479PubMedCrossRef

16.

Huang KH, Chuang FC, Fu HC, Kung FT (2012) Polypropylene mesh as an alternative option for uterine preservation in pelvic reconstruction in patients with uterine prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 38:97–101PubMedCrossRef

17.

Gutman R, Maher C (2013) Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J 24:1803–1813PubMedCrossRef

18.

Huang W-C, Lin T-Y, Lau H-H, Chen S-S, Hsieh C-H, Su T-H (2011) Outcome of transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery with Prolift after a median of 2 years’ follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 22:197–203PubMedCrossRef

19.

Simon M, Debodinance P (2011) Vaginal prolapse repair using the Prolift kit: a registry of 100 successive cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158:104–109PubMedCrossRef

20.

de Landsheere L, Ismail S, Lucot J-P, Deken V, Foidart J-M, Cosson M (2012) Surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair: retrospective single-center study including 524 patients with 3 years’ median follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206:83.e1–83.e7CrossRef

21.

Hong M-K, Chu T-Y, Wei Y-C, Ding D-C (2013) High success rate and considerable adverse events of pelvic prolapse surgery with Prolift: A single center experience. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 52:389–394PubMedCrossRef

22.

Wu M-P, Long C-Y, Huang K-H, Chu C-C, Liang C-C, Tang C-H (2012) Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: an 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study. Int Urogynecol J 23:865–872PubMedCrossRef

23.

Chu L-C, Chuang F-C, Kung F-T, Huang K-H (2012) Comparison of short-term outcomes following pelvic reconstruction with Perigee and Apogee systems: hysterectomy or not? Int Urogynecol J 23:79–84PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

24.

de Tayrac R, Sentilhes L (2013) Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention. Int Urogynecol J 24:1859–1872PubMedCrossRef

25.

Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Koops SES (2010) One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J 21:209–2016PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Mistrangelo E, Mancuso S, Nadalini C, Lijoi D, Costantini S (2007) Rising use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery: a review of the risk of vaginal erosion. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14:564–569PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kaufman Y, Singh SS, Alturki H, Lam A (2011) Age and sexual activity are risk factors for mesh exposure following transvaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J 22:307–313PubMedCrossRef

Title: Medium-term comparison of uterus preservation versus hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse treatment with Prolift™ mesh
Authors: Li-Yi Huang
Li-Ching Chu
Hsin-ju Chiang
Fei-Chi Chuang
Fu-Tsai Kung
Kuan-Hui Huang
Publication date: 01-07-2015
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 7/2015
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2630-z

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Medium-term comparison of uterus preservation versus hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse treatment with Prolift™ mesh

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2015

Bowel and bladder dysfunction following surgery within the presacral space: an overview of neuroanatomy, function, and dysfunction

The genital prolapse of Australopithecus Lucy?

Laparoscopic reconstruction of an iatrogenic perforation of the neovagina and urinary bladder by a neovaginal dilator in a patient with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome

Lower urinary tract dysfunction after nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy

Comments on Løwenstein et al.: Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009

Alteration of anal sphincter function in patients with levator avulsion: observational study