Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

11-01-2024 | Rectal Prolapse | Original Article

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study

Authors: Wissam Arab, David Lukanović, Miha Matjašič, Mija Blaganje, Bruno Deval

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 2/2024

Abstract

Introduction and Hypothesis

The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates.

Methods

The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients’ satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants.

Results

There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= −0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC.

Conclusions

Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients’ satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.

Kirby AC, Luber KM, Menefee SA. An update on the current and future demand for care of pelvic floor disorders in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(6):584.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.09.011.CrossRefPubMed

Scottish Government. Halt in use of transvaginal mesh. Published 12 September 2018. https://www.gov.scot/news/halt-in-use-of-transvaginal-mesh/.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018.CrossRefPubMed

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5.

Izett-Kay ML, Rahmanou P, Cartwright RJ, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(7):1957–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6.CrossRefPubMed

Lewis CM, Culligan P. Sacrohysteropexy followed by successful pregnancy and eventual reoperation for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(7):957–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1631-9.CrossRefPubMed

Costantini E, Porena M, Lazzeri M, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A. Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair: role of hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(9):1481–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-2041-3.CrossRefPubMed

Jha S, Cutner A, Moran P. The UK National Prolapse Survey: 10 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):795–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3476-3.CrossRefPubMed

Rusavy Z, Najib B, Abdelkhalek Y, Grinstein E, Gluck O, Deval B. Outcomes of sacrocolpopexy/sacrohysteropexy with mesh placement targeted to affected compartment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;272:188–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.03.037.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Maglinte DD, Kelvin FM, Fitzgerald K, Hale DS, Benson JT. Association of compartment defects in pelvic floor dysfunction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(2):439–44. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.172.2.9930799.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Smart NJ, Pathak S, Boorman P, Daniels IR. Synthetic or biological mesh use in laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy—a systematic review. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(6):650–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12219.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ahmad N, Stefan S, Adukia V, Naqvi S, Khan J. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: functional outcomes after surgery. Surg J. 2018;4(4):e205–11. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1675358.CrossRef

13.

Stevenson ARL. What does the future hold for ventral rectopexy? EClinicalMedicine. 2019;16:2–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.10.010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Ulrich D, Guzman Rojas R, Dietz HP, Mann K, Trutnovsky G. Use of a visual analog scale for evaluation of bother from pelvic organ prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(6):693–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13222.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Voutilainen A, Pitkäaho T, Kvist T, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K. How to ask about patient satisfaction? The visual analogue scale is less vulnerable to confounding factors and ceiling effect than a symmetric Likert scale. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(4):946–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12875.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Rusavy Z, Grinstein E, Gluck O, Abdelkhalek Y, Deval B. Long-term development of surgical outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with anterior and posterior mesh extension. Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34(1):191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05102-y.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Obut M, Oğlak SC, Akgöl S. Comparison of the quality of life and female sexual function following laparoscopic pectopexy and laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in apical prolapse patients. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2021;10(2):96–103. https://doi.org/10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_67_20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Burchette RJ, Luber KM, Nager CW, Galen BJ. The use of Visual Analog Scale in urogynecologic research: a psychometric evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1):165–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.04.047.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Farghali MM, Abdelzaher A, Abdelazim IA. Surgical and quality of life outcomes after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in older postmenopausal women. Przeglad Menopauzalny Menopause Rev. 2021;20(1):21–8. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2021.104473.CrossRef

21.

Deval B, Jeffry L, Al Najjar F, Soriano D, Darai E. Determinants of patient dissatisfaction after a tension-free vaginal tape procedure for urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2002;167(5):2093–7.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Izett-Kay ML, Aldabeeb D, Kupelian AS, et al. Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(12):2595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04396-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Hunter JG, Spight DH, Sandone C, Fairman JE. Rectopexy and posterior mesh repair for rectal prolapse. In: Atlas of Minimally Invasive Surgical Operations. McGraw-Hill Education; 2018. Accessed 18 May 2023. accesssurgery.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?aid=1162531962.

24.

Gluck O, Grinstein E, Deval B. Effect of age on surgical outcomes and rate of complication in women undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and sacrohysteropexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(11):S101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2021.09.132.CrossRef

25.

Larsen MD, Lose G, Guldberg R, Gradel KO. Discrepancies between patient-reported outcome measures when assessing urinary incontinence or pelvic-prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):537–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2840-4.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study
Authors: Wissam Arab
David Lukanović
Miha Matjašič
Mija Blaganje
Bruno Deval
Publication date: 11-01-2024
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Rectal Prolapse
Rectopexy
Sacrocolpopexy
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-023-05701-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study

Abstract

Introduction and Hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and Hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2024

Pilot Study of a Novel Online Comprehensive Pelvic Floor Program for Urinary Incontinence in Women

Impact of Preoperative Urinary Tract Infection Screening in Asymptomatic Women Undergoing Midurethral Sling

Antibiotic utilization and symptom improvement in a retrospective cohort of women with urinary tract infection symptoms

Pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse: evaluation of vaginal discharge and pain during pessary cleaning in an outpatient setting

The impact of verbal goal setting on operating room turnover time: a randomized trial

Recurrent urinary tract infection genetic risk: a systematic review and gene network analysis