Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on modern management of frailty

LIVE: Thursday 17th October 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Frailty has a significant impact on health and wellbeing, especially in older adults. Join our experts to understand the factors that contribute to the development of frailty and find out how to manage the condition and reduce the risk of disability, dependency, and mortality.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

25-09-2024 | Sacrocolpopexy | Urogynecology

Post-operative outcomes associated with anterior mesh location after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

Authors: Nassir Habib, Matteo Giorgi, Tania Tahtouh, Amel Hamdi, Gabriele Centini, Alberto Cannoni, Georges Bader

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the relationship between the anatomical position of the anterior arm of the mesh, measured by ultrasound through the bladder neck–mesh distance technique and the surgical outcomes after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (SCP) for apical prolapse.

Study design

It was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in a tertiary care hospital. Between January 2019 and September 2019, 63 women who underwent laparoscopic SCP due to apical prolapse were included. Bladder neck–mesh distance was measured immediately after surgery. The pelvic floor was evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) System before, 1 month, and 2.7 years (mid-term) after the surgery. Post-operative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores were also assessed. The correlation between bladder neck–mesh distance and the post-operative outcomes was investigated using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient.

Results

At mid-term follow-up visit, bladder neck–mesh distance was inversely correlated with the correction of apical prolapse and post-operative SUI. No correlation was detected with the anterior compartment prolapse correction. PGI-I scores were high in all patients at mid-term follow-up, irrespective of bladder neck–mesh distance values.

Conclusion

The shorter the bladder neck–mesh distance, the better the outcome for apical compartment repair. Bladder neck–mesh distance had no correlation with the anterior anatomical correction. Shorter bladder neck–mesh distance values were positively correlated to better PGI-I scores and a higher risk of SUI.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K et al (2017) Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 30:11
2.
Guan Y, Han J (2024) Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet 309:813–820CrossRefPubMed
3.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K et al (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane database of systematic reviews: reviews. Wiley, Chichester, UK
4.
5.
Mandron E, Bryckaert P-E (2005) Prolapsus et colpocèle antérieure. Double promontofixation cœlioscopique Technique Ann Urol 39:247–256
6.
Bacle J, Papatsoris AG, Bigot P et al (2011) Laparoscopic promontofixation for pelvic organ prolapse: a 10-year single center experience in a series of 501 patients. Int J Urol 18:821–826CrossRefPubMed
7.
Deprest J, De RD, Roovers J-P et al (2009) Medium term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with xenografts compared to synthetic grafts. J Urol 182:2362–2368CrossRefPubMed
8.
Stepanian AA, Miklos JR, Moore RD et al (2008) Risk of mesh extrusion and other mesh-related complications after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with or without concurrent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: experience of 402 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15:188–196CrossRefPubMed
9.
Cassis C, Mukhopadhyay S, Morris E (2019) Standardizing abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of apical prolapse: one year on. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 147:49–53CrossRefPubMed
10.
Wagner L, Boileau L, Delmas V et al (2009) Traitement chirurgical du prolapsus par promontofixation cœlioscopique. Techniques et résultats Progr Urol 19:994–1005CrossRef
11.
Habib N, Centini G, Pizzoferrato A-C et al (2019) Laparoscopic promontofixation: Where to stop the anterior dissection? Med Hypotheses 124:60–63CrossRefPubMed
12.
Dietz HP (2006) Why pelvic floor surgeons should utilize ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28:629–634CrossRefPubMed
13.
Dietz HP, Kamisan Atan I, Salita A (2016) Association between ICS POP -Q coordinates and translabial ultrasound findings: implications for definition of ‘normal pelvic organ support.’ Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 47:363–368CrossRefPubMed
14.
Eisenberg VH, Callewaert G, Sindhwani N et al (2019) Ultrasound visualization of sacrocolpopexy polyvinylidene fluoride meshes containing paramagnetic Fe particles compared with polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J 30:795–804CrossRefPubMed
15.
Eisenberg VH, Steinberg M, Weiner Z et al (2014) Three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound for imaging mesh implants following sacrocolpopexy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:459–465CrossRefPubMed
16.
Svabík K, Martan A, Masata J et al (2011) Ultrasound appearances after mesh implantation–evidence of mesh contraction or folding? Int Urogynecol J 22:529–533CrossRefPubMed
17.
Wong V, Guzman Rojas R, Shek KL et al (2017) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: how low does the mesh go? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 49:404–408CrossRefPubMed
18.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335:806CrossRef
19.
Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17CrossRefPubMed
20.
Laitakari KE, Mäkelä-Kaikkonen JK, Pääkkö E et al (2019) A prospective pilot study on MRI visibility of iron oxide-impregnated polyvinylidene fluoride mesh after ventral rectopexy. Tech Coloproctol 23:633–637CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Baden WF, Walker T (1992) Surgical repair of vaginal defects. Lippincott, New York
22.
Atherton MJ, Stanton SL (2000) A comparison of bladder neck movement and elevation after tension-free vaginal tape and colposuspension. BJOG 107:1366–1370CrossRefPubMed
23.
Wall LL, Versi E, Norton P et al (1998) Evaluating the outcome of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:877–879CrossRefPubMed
24.
Le Normand L, Cosson M, Cour F et al (2016) Recommandations pour la pratique clinique : synthèse des recommandations pour le traitement chirurgical du prolapsus génital non récidivé de la femme par l’AFU, le CNGOF, la SIFUD-PP, la SNFCP, et la SCGP. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 45:1606–1613CrossRef
25.
26.
Guralnick ML, Fritel X, Tarcan T, Espuna-Pons M, Rosier PFWM (2018) ICS educational module: cough stress test in the evaluation of female urinary incontinence: introducing the ICS-uniform cough stress test. Neurourol Urodyn 37:1849–1855CrossRefPubMed
27.
Haylen BT, De Ridder D, Freeman RM et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29:4–20CrossRefPubMed
28.
Yalcin I, Bump RC (2003) Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:98–101CrossRefPubMed
29.
Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L (2010) Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21:523–528CrossRefPubMed
30.
Schober P, Schwarte LA (2018) Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 126:1763–1768CrossRefPubMed
31.
Brocker KA, Lippus F, Alt CD et al (2015) Magnetic resonance-visible polypropylene mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair. Gynecol Obstet Invest 79:101–106CrossRefPubMed
32.
Pregazzi R, Sartore A, Bortoli P et al (2002) Perineal ultrasound evaluation of urethral angle and bladder neck mobility in women with stress urinary incontinence. BJOG 109:821–827CrossRefPubMed
33.
Cosma S, Petruzzelli P, ChiadòFiorio Tin M et al (2018) Simplified laparoscopic sacropexy avoiding deep vaginal dissection. Int J Gynecol Obstet 143:239–245CrossRef
34.
De Lancey JOL (2016) What’s new in the functional anatomy of pelvic organ prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 28:420–429CrossRef
35.
Luo J, Chen L, Fenner DE et al (2015) A multi-compartment 3-D finite element model of rectocele and its interaction with cystocele HHS public access. J Biomech 48:1580–1586CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Withagen MI, Milani AL, De Leeuw JW et al (2012) Development of de novo prolapse in untreated vaginal compartments after prolapse repair with and without mesh: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 119:354–360CrossRefPubMed
37.
Shepherd JP, Higdon HL 3rd, Stanford EJ, Mattox TF (2010) Effect of suture selection on the rate of suture or mesh erosion and surgery failure in abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 16:229–233CrossRefPubMed
38.
Reisenauer C, Andress J, Schoenfisch B, Huebner M, Brucker SY, Lippkowski A, Beilecke K, Marschke J, Tunn R (2022) Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for vaginal mesh attachment during sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 33:411–419CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Post-operative outcomes associated with anterior mesh location after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
Authors
Nassir Habib
Matteo Giorgi
Tania Tahtouh
Amel Hamdi
Gabriele Centini
Alberto Cannoni
Georges Bader
Publication date
25-09-2024
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07719-4