One-year outcome of concurrent anterior and posterior transvaginal mesh surgery for treatment of advanced urogenital prolapse: case series

Abstract

Study objective: To estimate the safety and efficacy of performing concurrent anterior and posterior transvaginal mesh surgery using a commercially available kit (Gynecare PROLIFT Pelvic Floor Repair System; Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, NJ) for treatment of advanced urogenital prolapse (stage III or higher, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification [POP-Q] system staging).

Design: Case control series study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

Setting: Medical school-affiliated hospital.

Patients: Forty-three patients with severe prolapse, POP-Q stage III (n=23) or IV (n=20), underwent surgery and were followed up for more than 1 year. In patients with any prolapse greater than stage I, surgery were considered to have functional failure. The Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire was used for subjective evaluation at 1 year postoperatively.

Interventions: Extensive pelvic reconstructive procedures were primarily performed using a combination of the PROLIFT anterior and posterior pelvic systems (i.e., similar to sparing the intermediate section of the PROLIFT total pelvic system). The concurrent pelvic surgery included sequential vaginal total hysterectomy, perineorrhaphy, and suburethra sling, if indicated. Additional subjective and objective evaluations included POP-Q staging, urodynamic assessment, and preoperative and 12-month postoperative questionnaires.

Measurements and main results: Objective and subjective data were available for 42 patients. The subjective cure rate and objective success rate for prolapse at 12-month follow-up was 95.2% and 97.6%, respectively. Mean follow-up was 15.7 months, operation time was 79.2 minutes, operative blood loss was 109.1 mL, and postoperative hospital stay was 4.1 days. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were minor. All patients voided spontaneously before discharge. One mesh extrusion, no wound defective healing, and no rejection were observed. Two patients developed asymptomatic recurrent rectocele (stage II, POP-Q staging) that required no surgical intervention. Urodynamic parameters related to voiding dysfunction improved after surgery. Significant improvements were found using the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory.

Conclusion: Using concurrent anterior and posterior transvaginal mesh for pelvic reconstructive surgery is a safe and an effective method for treating advanced pelvic prolapse. Mesh-related complications are likely minimal, and mesh protrusion at the apex is likely to not occur. Further studies with longer follow-up are required to evaluate long-term effectiveness.