Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension With Transobturator Mesh Versus Sacral Colpopexy For Genital Prolapse

To compare the safety and efficacy of abdominal sacral colpopexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension with the use of vaginal mesh for apical prolapse. METHOD: This retrospective study was conducted from 2005 to 2012 and included 89 women with apical prolapse who underwent surgery. Assessments included pre- and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage. Rates of objective cure and immediate/late complications were compared. RESULTS: In total, 41 of the 89 women underwent sacrospinous ligament suspension, and 48 of the women underwent abdominal sacral colpopexy. A total of 40.4% of the women had vault prolapse (p=0.9361). Most of them had no complications (93.2%) (p=0.9418). Approximately 30% of the women had late complications; local pain was the main symptom and was found only in women who underwent the abdominal procedure (25.6%) (p=0.001). Only the women who were submitted to the vaginal procedure had mesh exposure (18.4%). The objective success rate and the rate of anterior vaginal prolapse (p=0.2970) were similar for both techniques. CONCLUSION: Sacrospinous ligament suspension was as effective and had a similar objective success rate as abdominal sacral colpopexy for the treatment of apical prolapse. Sacrospinous ligament suspension performed with the use of vaginal mesh in the anterior compartment was effective in preventing anterior vaginal prolapse after surgery.71948749

Cirurgia Com Tela Para Correção De Prolapso De Parede Anterior: Metanálise

Purpose Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major health issue worldwide, affecting 6–8% of women. The most affected site is the anterior vaginal wall. Multiple procedures and surgical techniques have been used, with or without the use of vaginal meshes, due to common treatment failure, reoperations, and complication rates in some studies. Methods Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis regarding the use of vaginal mesh in anterior vaginal wall prolapse was performed. A total of 115 papers were retrieved after using the medical subject headings (MESH) terms: ‘anterior pelvic organ prolapse OR cystocele AND surgery AND (mesh or colporrhaphy)’ in the PubMed database. Exclusion criteria were: follow-up shorter than 1 year, use of biological or absorbable meshes, and inclusion of other vaginal wall prolapses. Studies were put in a data chart by two independent editors; results found in at least two studies were grouped for analysis. Results After the review of the titles by two independent editors, 70 studies were discarded, and after abstract assessment, 18 trials were eligible for full text screening. For final screening and meta-analysis, after applying the Jadad score ( > 2), 12 studies were included. Objective cure was greater in the mesh surgery group (odds ratio [OR] = 1,28 [1,07–1,53]), which also had greater blood loss (mean deviation [MD] = 45,98 [9,72–82,25]), longer surgery time (MD = 15,08 [0,48–29,67]), but less prolapse recurrence (OR = 0,22 [01,3–0,38]). Dyspareunia, symptom resolution and reoperation rates were not statistically different between groups. Quality of life (QOL) assessment through the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12), the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20), the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the perceived quality of life scale (PQOL) was not significantly different. Conclusions Anterior vaginal prolapse mesh surgery has greater anatomic cure rates and less recurrence, although there were no differences regarding subjective cure, reoperation rates and quality of life. Furthermore, mesh surgery was associated with longer surgical time and greater blood loss. Mesh use should be individualized, considering prior history and risk factors for recurrence. © 2016 by Thieme Publicações Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.38735636

Cirurgia com tela para correção de prolapso de parede anterior: metanálise

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major health issue worldwide, affecting 6–8% of women. The most affected site is the anterior vaginal wall. Multiple procedures and surgical techniques have been used, with or without the use of vaginal meshes, due to common treatment failure, reoperations, and complication rates in some studies. Methods Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis regarding the use of vaginal mesh in anterior vaginal wall prolapse was performed. A total of 115 papers were retrieved after using the medical subject headings (MESH) terms: ‘anterior pelvic organ prolapse OR cystocele AND surgery AND (mesh or colporrhaphy)’ in the PubMed database. Exclusion criteria were: follow-up shorter than 1 year, use of biological or absorbable meshes, and inclusion of other vaginal wall prolapses. Studies were put in a data chart by two independent editors; results found in at least two studies were grouped for analysis. Results After the review of the titles by two independent editors, 70 studies were discarded, and after abstract assessment, 18 trials were eligible for full text screening. For final screening and meta-analysis, after applying the Jadad score ( > 2), 12 studies were included. Objective cure was greater in the mesh surgery group (odds ratio [OR] = 1,28 [1,07–1,53]), which also had greater blood loss (mean deviation [MD] = 45,98 [9,72–82,25]), longer surgery time (MD = 15,08 [0,48–29,67]), but less prolapse recurrence (OR = 0,22 [01,3–0,38]). Dyspareunia, symptom resolution and reoperation rates were not statistically different between groups. Quality of life (QOL) assessment through the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12), the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20), the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the perceived quality of life scale (PQOL) was not significantly different. Conclusions Anterior vaginal prolapse mesh surgery has greater anatomic cure rates and less recurrence, although there were no differences regarding subjective cure, reoperation rates and quality of life. Furthermore, mesh surgery was associated with longer surgical time and greater blood loss. Mesh use should be individualized, considering prior history and risk factors for recurrence.387356364Prolapso de órgãos pélvicos é problema de saúde públicas, sendo o mais comum o anterior. Para tratamento são utilizadas cirurgias, com ou sem telas. O uso de telas é para diminuir recidivas, mas não h á consenso. Métodos: Foi realizada revisão da literatura e metanálise, sobre uso de telas na correção do prolapso anterior. Base de dados foi PUBMED , com termos (MESH): “Anterior Pelvic Organ OR Cystocele AND Surgery AND (Mesh or Colporrhaphy)”. Critérios de exclusão foram: seguimento menor que 1 ano, telas biológicas ou absorvíveis. Resultados: foram avaliados 115 artigos. Após revisão dos títulos, 70 estudos foram descartados e 18 após leitura de resumos. Após critérios de Jadad (>2), 12 estudos foram incluídos. Análise estatística foi razão de risco ou diferença entre médias dos grupos, e as análises com grande heterogeneidade foram avaliadas através de análise de efeito aleatório. Resultados: Cura objetiva foi superior no grupo com tela - OR 1,28 (1,07-1,53, p ≤ 0,00001), maior perda sanguínea - diferença média (MD) 45,98 (9,72-82,25, p = 0,01), tempo cirúrgico mais longo - MD 15,08 (0,48-29,67, p = 0,04), porém menor recorrência - OR 0,22 (0,13-0,38, p = 0,00001), não apresentando maior resolução dos sintomas - OR 1,93 (0,83-4,51, p = 0,15). Dispareunia e taxa de reoperação também não foram diferentes entre grupos. Qualidade de vida não apresentou diferença. Conclusões: Cirurgia com tela para prolapso vaginal anterior apresenta melhor taxa de cura anatômica e menor recorrência, sem diferenças cura subjetiva, reoperação e qualidade de vida. Há maior tempo cirúrgico e perda sanguínea. Uso de telas deve ser individualizado

Sacrospinous ligament suspension with transobturator mesh versus sacral colpopexy for genital prolapse

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of abdominal sacral colpopexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension with the use of vaginal mesh for apical prolapse. METHOD: This retrospective study was conducted from 2005 to 2012 and included 89 women with apical prolapse who underwent surgery. Assessments included pre- and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage. Rates of objective cure and immediate/late complications were compared. RESULTS: In total, 41 of the 89 women underwent sacrospinous ligament suspension, and 48 of the women underwent abdominal sacral colpopexy. A total of 40.4% of the women had vault prolapse (p=0.9361). Most of them had no complications (93.2%) (p=0.9418). Approximately 30% of the women had late complications; local pain was the main symptom and was found only in women who underwent the abdominal procedure (25.6%) (p=0.001). Only the women who were submitted to the vaginal procedure had mesh exposure (18.4%). The objective success rate and the rate of anterior vaginal prolapse (p=0.2970) were similar for both techniques. CONCLUSION: Sacrospinous ligament suspension was as effective and had a similar objective success rate as abdominal sacral colpopexy for the treatment of apical prolapse. Sacrospinous ligament suspension performed with the use of vaginal mesh in the anterior compartment was effective in preventing anterior vaginal prolapse after surgery

Factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse

OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors associated with the prescription of vaginal pessaries (VPs) as a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed during two annual urogynecology and general obstetrics and gynecology meetings in 2017 (Sa˜o Paulo, SP, Brazil). A 19-item deidentified questionnaire regarding experiences and practices in prescribing VPs for POP patients was distributed among gynecologists. Our primary outcome was the frequency of prescribing VPs as a conservative treatment for POP. The reasons for prescribing or not prescribing VPs were also investigated. Univariate and multivariate analyses with crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were performed for variables associated with the prescription of pessaries. RESULTS: Three hundred forty completed surveys were analyzed. Half of the respondents (53.53%) were between 30-49 years old; most of them were female (73.53%), were from the Southeast Region (64.12%), were trained in obstetrics and gynecology (80.24%) or urogynecology (61.18%) and worked in private offices (63.42%). More than one-third (36.48%) attended four or more POP cases/week, and 97.65% (n=332) had heard or knew about VPs for POP; however, only 47.06% (n=160) prescribed or offered this treatment to patients. According to the multivariate analysis, physicians aged 18-35 years (OR=1.97[1.00-3.91]; p=0.04), those who participated in a previous urogynecology fellowship (OR=2.34[1.34-4.09]; po0.01), those with relatively high volumes of POP cases (4 or +) (OR=2.23[1.21-4.47]; p=0.01) and those with PhD degrees (OR=2.75[1.01-7.54]; p=0.05) prescribed more pessaries. CONCLUSIONS: Most gynecologists did not prescribe VPs. Younger physician age, participation in a previous urogynecology fellowship, a PhD degree, and a relatively high volume of POP cases were associated with increased VP prescription rates