Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Surgery 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Stress Incontinence | Research

Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse

Authors: Mayuko Kusuda, Keiko Kagami, Ikumi Takahashi, Takahiro Nozaki, Ikuko Sakamoto

Published in: BMC Surgery | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is greatly affecting the quality of life (QOL) of women. There are some surgical techniques for POP repair, for example, transvaginal mesh surgery (TVM), laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC). In the United States and Europe, the number of TVM has rapidly decreased since 2011 due to complications and safety concerns and has shifted to LSC/RSC. In Japan, RSC has increased after the insurance coverage of RSC in 2020. Therefore, we compared the surgical outcomes of TVM and RSC in POP surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively collected POP surgery underwent TVM or RSC at our hospital and compared the operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, and preoperative and postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) of two groups. Preoperative and postoperative SUI were classified into 3 groups: “improved preoperative SUI”, “persistent preoperative SUI” and “de novo SUI”, which occurred for the first time in patients with no preoperative SUI, and compared incidence rate. The Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the two groups, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

From August 2011 to July 2021, 76 POP surgery was performed and they were classified into two groups: TVM group (n = 39) and RSC group (n = 37). There was no difference in patient age and BMI between the TVM and RSC groups. The median of operative time was 78.0 vs. 111.0 min (p = 0.06), blood loss was 20.0 ml vs. 5.0 ml (p < 0.05), and postoperative hospital stay was 4.0 days vs. 3.0 days (p < 0.05), with less blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay in the RSC group. There was no difference in postoperative complications between the TVM and RSC groups (17.9% vs. 16.2%, p = 1.00). De novo SUI was 25.6% vs. 5.4% (p < 0.05) in the TVM and RSC groups, of which 23.1% vs. 5.4% (p < 0.05) occurred within 3 months of surgery.

Conclusion

RSC is more beneficial and less invasive for patients with pelvic organ prolapse than TVM. In addition, de novo SUI as postoperative complication of RSC was lower than of TVM.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.CrossRef Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.CrossRef Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Warembourg S, Labaki M, de Tayrac R, Costa P, Fatton B. Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1139–51.CrossRef Warembourg S, Labaki M, de Tayrac R, Costa P, Fatton B. Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1139–51.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Vani D, Megumi A, Gayle A, Prathamesh P. Mesh complications and failure rates after transvaginal mesh repair compared with abdominal or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and to native tissue repair in treating apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(2):215–22.CrossRef Vani D, Megumi A, Gayle A, Prathamesh P. Mesh complications and failure rates after transvaginal mesh repair compared with abdominal or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and to native tissue repair in treating apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(2):215–22.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Haruhiko K, Aki O, Tomomi M, Kohji M. Occurrence of pre- and postoperative stress urinary incontinence in 105 patients who underwent tension-free vaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective study. ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2014;2014:1–5. Haruhiko K, Aki O, Tomomi M, Kohji M. Occurrence of pre- and postoperative stress urinary incontinence in 105 patients who underwent tension-free vaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective study. ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2014;2014:1–5.
6.
go back to reference Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1557–66.CrossRef Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1557–66.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kasturi S, Diaz SI, McDermott CD, et al. De novo stress urinary incontinence after negative prolapse reduction stress testing for total vaginal mesh procedures: incidence and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(5):487.e1-487.e4.CrossRef Kasturi S, Diaz SI, McDermott CD, et al. De novo stress urinary incontinence after negative prolapse reduction stress testing for total vaginal mesh procedures: incidence and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(5):487.e1-487.e4.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Faioli R, Sozzi G, Chiantera V, et al. Anterior/apical single incision mesh (Elevate™): surgical experience, anatomical and functional results, and long-term complications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;260:166–70.CrossRef Faioli R, Sozzi G, Chiantera V, et al. Anterior/apical single incision mesh (Elevate™): surgical experience, anatomical and functional results, and long-term complications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;260:166–70.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kawaguchi S, Narimoto K, Hamuro A, et al. Transvaginal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: 1-year clinical outcomes. Int J Urol. 2021;28(3):268–72.CrossRef Kawaguchi S, Narimoto K, Hamuro A, et al. Transvaginal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: 1-year clinical outcomes. Int J Urol. 2021;28(3):268–72.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Yang J, He Y, Zhang X, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(6):449.CrossRef Yang J, He Y, Zhang X, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(6):449.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Wei D, Wang P, Niu X, Zhao X. Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019;45(4):915–22.CrossRef Wei D, Wang P, Niu X, Zhao X. Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019;45(4):915–22.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):360.e1-360.e7.CrossRef Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):360.e1-360.e7.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chen J, Xu T, Zhang X, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy vs transvaginal mesh repair for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: 1 year results of a multicenter randomized study. J Gynecol Obstet. 2020;8(3):55–61.CrossRef Chen J, Xu T, Zhang X, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy vs transvaginal mesh repair for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: 1 year results of a multicenter randomized study. J Gynecol Obstet. 2020;8(3):55–61.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Sato H, Teramoto S, Abe H, Mochida J, Takahashi S. LSC (laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy) versus uphold type TVM: a case control study. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai zasshi Jpn J Urol. 2019;110(2):112–8. Sato H, Teramoto S, Abe H, Mochida J, Takahashi S. LSC (laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy) versus uphold type TVM: a case control study. Nihon Hinyokika Gakkai zasshi Jpn J Urol. 2019;110(2):112–8.
15.
go back to reference Winters JC, Dmochowski RR, Goldman HB, et al. Urodynamic studies in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2012;188(6 Suppl):2464–72.CrossRef Winters JC, Dmochowski RR, Goldman HB, et al. Urodynamic studies in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2012;188(6 Suppl):2464–72.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Miwa K, Moriyama Y, Ito H, et al. The relationship between de novo stress urinary incontinence and mesh fixation technique on laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. J Jpn Cont Soc. 2017;28:351–5. Miwa K, Moriyama Y, Ito H, et al. The relationship between de novo stress urinary incontinence and mesh fixation technique on laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. J Jpn Cont Soc. 2017;28:351–5.
Metadata
Title
Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
Authors
Mayuko Kusuda
Keiko Kagami
Ikumi Takahashi
Takahiro Nozaki
Ikuko Sakamoto
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Surgery / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2482
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01702-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

BMC Surgery 1/2022 Go to the issue