Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-04-2010 | Original Article

Long-term results of vaginal repairs with and without xenograft reinforcement

Authors: Lone Mouritsen, Manuela Kronschnabl, Gunnar Lose

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 4/2010

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this paper is to study if xenograft reinforcement of vaginal repair reduces recurrence of prolapse.

Methods

Results 1–5 years after vaginal repair were studied in 41 cases with xenograft and in 82 matched controls without. Symptoms were evaluated by a validated questionnaire and anatomy by pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ).

Results

Significant more cases, 97% versus 81% controls, felt cured or much improved (p = 0.02); 11% of cases and 19% of controls had POP symptoms, POPQ > −1 was found in 31% cases and 24% controls. Defining recurrence as POPQ > −1 plus symptoms revealed recurrence in 3% of cases and 12% controls. None of the recurrence rates was significantly different for cases versus controls. No vaginal erosions were seen. Previous surgery was a significant risk factor with odds ratio 7.3 for another recurrence.

Conclusions

Recurrence rates defined by POPQ plus symptoms were low compared to literature. Xenograft reinforcement might improve results.

Swift S (2000) The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285CrossRefPubMed

Fornell E (2003) Prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence in women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:280–285

Tegerstedt G, Hammarström M (2004) Operation for pelvic organ prolapse: a follow-up study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83:758–763PubMed

Mouritsen L, Larsen JP (2003) Symptoms, bother and POPQ in women referred with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 14:122–127CrossRef

Ellerkmann M (2001) Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of POP. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1332–1338CrossRefPubMed

Da Silva, Gurland B, Sleemi A, Levy G (2006) Posterior vaginal wall prolapse does not correlate with fecal symptoms or objective measures of anorectal function. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195(6):1742–1747CrossRefPubMed

Weber AM (2001) The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol 12:178–186

Maher C, Baessler K, Glazerner CMA, Adams EJ, Hagen S (2004) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane database of systematic reviews Issue 4. Art.No.:CD004041. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub2

Baessler K, Maher C (2006) Mesh augmentation during pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: risks and benefits. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 18:560–566CrossRefPubMed

10.

Huebner M, Hsu Y, Fenner DE (2006) The use of graft material in vaginal pelvic floor surgery. Int J Obstet Gynecol 92:279–288CrossRef

11.

Milani R, Salvatore S, Soligo M, Pifarotti P, Meschia M, Cortese M (2005) Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 112:107–111

12.

Chaliha C, Khalid U, Campagna L, Digesu GA, Ajay B, Khullar V (2006) SIS graft for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair—a case-controlled study. Int Urogynecol J 17:492–497CrossRef

13.

Handel LN, Frenkl TL, Kim YH (2007) Results of cystocele repair: a comparison of traditional anterior colporrhaphy, polypropylene mesh and porcine dermis. J Urol 178:153–156CrossRefPubMed

14.

Wheeler TL, Richter HE, Duke AG, Burgio KL, Redden DT, Varner RE (2006) Outcomes with porcine graft placement in the anterior vaginal compartment in patients who undergo high vaginal uterosacral suspension and cystocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1486–1491CrossRefPubMed

15.

Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir T, Walters M (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomised trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1762–1771CrossRefPubMed

16.

Altman D, Mellgren A, Zetterström (2005) Rectocele repair using biomaterial augmentation: current documentation and clinical experience. Obstet Gynecol Surv 60:753–760CrossRefPubMed

17.

Trabuco EC, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB (2007) Xenograft use in reconstructive pelvic surgery: a review of literature. Int Urogynecol J 18:555–563CrossRef

18.

Spence-Jones C, Kamm MA, Henry MM, Hudson CN (1994) Bowel dysfunction: a pathogenetic factor in uterovaginal prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:147–152PubMed

19.

Jorgensen s, Hein HO, Gyntelberg F (1994) Heavy lifting at work and risk of genital prolapse and herniated lumbar disc in assistant nurses. Occup Med 44:47–49CrossRef

20.

Swift SE, Pound T, Dias JK (2001) Case-control study of etiologic factors in the development of severe pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 12:187–192CrossRef

21.

Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, Kuehl TJ (2000) A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1365–1373CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hawkins E, Raajkumar S, Masood M (2008) Long-term patient satisfaction with prolapse surgery in general gynecology. Int Urogynecol J 19:1441–1448CrossRef

23.

Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I, Becerro A (2007) Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery: a review at 5 years after surgery. Int Urogynecol J 18:1317–1324CrossRef

24.

Kapoor DS, Freeman RM (2009) Reoperation rate following prolapse surgery. Am I Obstet Gynecol 200(2):e15

25.

Barber M (2005) Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 48(3):648–661CrossRefPubMed

26.

Elkadry EA, Kenton KS, FitzGerald MP, Shott S, Brubaker L (2003) Patient-selected goals: a new perspective on surgical outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1551–1558CrossRefPubMed

27.

Norton P, Boyd C, Deak S (1992) Abnormal collagen ratios in women with genitourinary prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 11:2–4

28.

Claerhout F, Verbist G, Verbeken G, Konstantinovic M, De Ridder D, Deprest J (2008) Fate of collagen-based implants used in pelvic floor surgery: a 2 year follow-up study in a rabbit model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:94 e 1-6CrossRef

29.

Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F, Magatti F, Riva F, Kocjancic E (2007) Porcine skin collagen implants to prevent anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence: a multicenter, randomised study. J Urol 177:192–195CrossRefPubMed

Title: Long-term results of vaginal repairs with and without xenograft reinforcement
Authors: Lone Mouritsen
Manuela Kronschnabl
Gunnar Lose
Publication date: 01-04-2010
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1061-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Long-term results of vaginal repairs with and without xenograft reinforcement

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 4/2010

Complete bladder eversion concurrent with total uterine prolapse

Cyclical estrogen and free radical damage to the rabbit urinary bladder

Primary versus recurrent prolapse surgery: differences in outcomes

A randomized clinical trial comparing pelvic floor muscle training to a Pilates exercise program for improving pelvic muscle strength

Mesh removal following transvaginal mesh placement: a case series of 104 operations

Does vaginal size impact sexual activity and function?