Robot-assisted surgery for the management of apical prolapse: a bicentre prospective cohort study

Objective: Robot‐assisted surgery is a recognized treatment for pelvic‐organ prolapse. Many of the surgical subgroup outcomes for apical prolapse are reported together leading to a paucity of homogenous data. Design: Prospective observational cohort study (https://clinicaltrials.gov; identifier NCT01598467) assessing outcomes for homogeneous subgroups of robot‐assisted apical prolapse surgery. Setting: Two European tertiary referral hospitals. Population: Consecutive patients undergoing robot‐assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and supracervical hysterectomy with sacrocervicopexy (RSHS). Methods: Anatomical cure (simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (sPOPQ) stage 1,), subjective cure (symptoms of bulge) and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire [PFIQ‐7]). Main Outcome measures: Primary outcome: anatomical and subjective cure. Secondary outcomes: surgical safety and intraoperative variables. Results: Total 305 patients included (RASC N=188, RSHS N=117). Twelve months follow‐up available for 144 (RASC 76.6%) and 109 (RSHS 93.2%). Anatomical success of the apical compartment occurred in 91% (RASC) and in 99% (RSHS). In all compartments, success percentages were 67% and 65% respectively. Most recurrences were anterior compartment (15.7% RASC [symptomatic 12.1%]; 22.9% RSHS [symptomatic 4.8%]). Symptoms of bulge improved from 97.4% to 17.4% (p<0.0005). PFIQ‐7 scores improved from 76.7 ± 62.3 to 13.5 ± 31.1 (p<0.0005). Duration of surgery increased significantly in RSHS (183.1 ± 38.2 versus 145.3 ± 29.8 [p<0.0005]). Intraoperative complications and conversion rates were low (RASC: 5.3% and 4.3%; RSHS: 0.0% and 0.0%). Four severe postoperative complications occurred after RASC (2.1%) and one after RSHS (1.6%). Conclusion: This is the largest reported prospective cohort study on robot‐assisted apical prolapse surgery. Both procedures are safe, with durable results

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

Study Question Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? Summary Answer Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed. What is Known Already Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. Study Design, Size, Duration Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. Main Results and the Role of Chance Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. Limitations, Reasons for Caution We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. Wider Implications of the Findings A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

Study Question Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? Summary Answer A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. What is Known Already Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. Study Design, Size, Duration A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. Main Results and the Role of Chance The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. Limitations, Reasons for Caution We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. Wider Implications of the Findings Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set

Comparison of two trocar-guided trans-vaginal mesh systems for repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study

Contains fulltext : 127290.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare failure and complication rates in patients who underwent a trocar-guided vaginal mesh repair with either a non-absorbable or a partially absorbable mesh. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive women undergoing either non-absorbable or partially absorbable mesh for symptomatic stage 2 prolapse or higher were evaluated at 12 months. Outcome measures included objective and subjective failure rates, patient's satisfaction, complications and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-nine women (347 with non-absorbable mesh, 222 with partially absorbable mesh) were included. Failure rates were similar in the two groups; the re-operation rate in the untreated compartments was higher in the non-absorbable mesh group compared with the partially absorbable mesh group (5 % vs 1 %). Mesh exposure rate in the non-absorbable mesh group was 12 % and in the partially absorbable mesh group it was 5 %. Other complication and patient satisfaction rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Non-absorbable and partially absorbable mesh demonstrated similar outcome rates at 12 months. The risk of reoperation was lower for partially absorbable mesh. The mesh exposure rate was significantly lower for the partially absorbable mesh group compared with the non-absorbable mesh group