Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 12/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Uterine Prolapse | Original Article

Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study

Authors: Matthew L. Izett-Kay, Dana Aldabeeb, Anthony S. Kupelian, Rufus Cartwright, Alfred S. Cutner, Simon Jackson, Natalia Price, Arvind Vashisht

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 12/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The paucity of long-term safety and efficacy data to support laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy is noteworthy given concerns about the use of polypropylene mesh in pelvic floor surgery. This study is aimed at determining the incidence of mesh-associated complications and reoperation following this procedure.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional postal questionnaire study of women who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy between 2010 and 2018. Potential participants were identified from surgical databases of five surgeons at two tertiary urogynaecology centres in the UK. The primary outcome was patient-reported mesh complication requiring removal of hysteropexy mesh. Secondary outcomes included other mesh-associated complications, reoperation rates and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) in prolapse symptoms. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were used.

Results

Of 1,766 eligible participants, 1,121 women responded (response proportion 63.5%), at a median follow-up of 46 months. The incidence of mesh complications requiring removal of hysteropexy mesh was 0.4% (4 out of 1,121). The rate of chronic pain service use was 1.8%, and newly diagnosed systemic autoimmune disorders was 5.8%. The rate of reoperation for apical prolapse was 3.7%, and for any form of pelvic organ prolapse it was 13.6%. For PGI-I, 81.4% of patients were “much better” or “very much better”.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy has a low incidence of reoperation for mesh complications and apical prolapse, and a high rate of patient-reported improvement in prolapse symptoms. With appropriate clinical governance measures, the procedure offers an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension. However, long-term comparative studies are still required.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129–146.e2.CrossRef Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129–146.e2.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Jha S, Cutner A, Moran P. The UK national prolapse survey: 10 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):795–801.CrossRef Jha S, Cutner A, Moran P. The UK national prolapse survey: 10 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):795–801.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyrén O, Hammarström M. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in a Swedish population. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16(6):497–503.CrossRef Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyrén O, Hammarström M. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in a Swedish population. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16(6):497–503.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, et al. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the OPTIMAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554–65.CrossRef Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, et al. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the OPTIMAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554–65.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Edenfield AL, Amundsen CL, Weidner AC, Wu JM, George A, Siddiqui NY. Vaginal prolapse recurrence after uterosacral ligament suspension in normal-weight compared with overweight and obese women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(3):554–9.CrossRef Edenfield AL, Amundsen CL, Weidner AC, Wu JM, George A, Siddiqui NY. Vaginal prolapse recurrence after uterosacral ligament suspension in normal-weight compared with overweight and obese women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(3):554–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MFR, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9.CrossRef Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MFR, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Zacche MM, Mukhopadhyay S, Giarenis I. Trends in prolapse surgery in England. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(11):1689–95.CrossRef Zacche MM, Mukhopadhyay S, Giarenis I. Trends in prolapse surgery in England. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(11):1689–95.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: a novel technique for uterine preservation surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):139–40.CrossRef Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: a novel technique for uterine preservation surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):139–40.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Jefferis H, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years’ experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1241–8.CrossRef Jefferis H, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years’ experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1241–8.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kupelian AS, Vashisht A, Sambandan N, Cutner A. Laparoscopic wrap round mesh sacrohysteropexy for the management of apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(12):1889–97.CrossRef Kupelian AS, Vashisht A, Sambandan N, Cutner A. Laparoscopic wrap round mesh sacrohysteropexy for the management of apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(12):1889–97.CrossRef
11.
12.
go back to reference Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389(10067):381–92.CrossRef Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389(10067):381–92.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, et al. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(11):1413–31.CrossRef Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, et al. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(11):1413–31.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Wise J. Surgical mesh for stress urinary incontinence to be halted immediately in England. BMJ. 2018;362:k3035.CrossRef Wise J. Surgical mesh for stress urinary incontinence to be halted immediately in England. BMJ. 2018;362:k3035.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Geller EJ, Babb E, Nackley AG, Zolnoun D. Incidence and risk factors for pelvic pain after mesh implant surgery for the treatment of pelvic floor disorders. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(1):67–73.CrossRef Geller EJ, Babb E, Nackley AG, Zolnoun D. Incidence and risk factors for pelvic pain after mesh implant surgery for the treatment of pelvic floor disorders. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(1):67–73.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Chughtai B, Sedrakyan A, Mao J, Eilber KS, Anger JT, Clemens JQ. Is vaginal mesh a stimulus of autoimmune disease? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(5):495.e1–7.CrossRef Chughtai B, Sedrakyan A, Mao J, Eilber KS, Anger JT, Clemens JQ. Is vaginal mesh a stimulus of autoimmune disease? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(5):495.e1–7.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Chapple CR, Cruz F, Deffieux X, et al. Consensus statement of the European Urology Association and the European Urogynaecological Association on the use of implanted materials for treating pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2017;72(3):424–31.CrossRef Chapple CR, Cruz F, Deffieux X, et al. Consensus statement of the European Urology Association and the European Urogynaecological Association on the use of implanted materials for treating pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2017;72(3):424–31.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.CrossRef Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRef Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRef Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Keltie K, Elneil S, Monga A, et al. Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8 year study of 92,246 women. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):12015.CrossRef Keltie K, Elneil S, Monga A, et al. Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8 year study of 92,246 women. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):12015.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2(2):CD012079.PubMed Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2(2):CD012079.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Grimminck K, Mourik S, Tjin-Asjoe F, Martens J, Aktas M. Long-term follow-up and quality of life after robot assisted sacrohysteropexy. E J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;206:27–31.CrossRef Grimminck K, Mourik S, Tjin-Asjoe F, Martens J, Aktas M. Long-term follow-up and quality of life after robot assisted sacrohysteropexy. E J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;206:27–31.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Paek J, Lee M, Kim BW, Kwon Y. Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):593–9.CrossRef Paek J, Lee M, Kim BW, Kwon Y. Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):593–9.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Brandsborg B, Nikolajsen L, Kehlet H, Jensen TS. Chronic pain after hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52(3):327–31.CrossRef Brandsborg B, Nikolajsen L, Kehlet H, Jensen TS. Chronic pain after hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52(3):327–31.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, Geiss I, Riss P. An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(3):299–302.CrossRef Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, Geiss I, Riss P. An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(3):299–302.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Husby KR, Larsen MD, Lose G, Klarskov N. Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques. Int Urogynecol J. 2019:;30(11):1887–93.CrossRef Husby KR, Larsen MD, Lose G, Klarskov N. Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques. Int Urogynecol J. 2019:;30(11):1887–93.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Dietz H, Mann K. What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):451–5.CrossRef Dietz H, Mann K. What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):451–5.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Altman D, Granath F, Cnattingius S, Falconer C. Hysterectomy and risk of stress-urinary-incontinence surgery: nationwide cohort study. Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1494–9.CrossRef Altman D, Granath F, Cnattingius S, Falconer C. Hysterectomy and risk of stress-urinary-incontinence surgery: nationwide cohort study. Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1494–9.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.CrossRef Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study
Authors
Matthew L. Izett-Kay
Dana Aldabeeb
Anthony S. Kupelian
Rufus Cartwright
Alfred S. Cutner
Simon Jackson
Natalia Price
Arvind Vashisht
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 12/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04396-0

Other articles of this Issue 12/2020

International Urogynecology Journal 12/2020 Go to the issue