Results of an innovative bulking agent in patients with stress urinary incontinence who are not optimal candidates for mid-urethral sling surgery

AimsTo assess the efficacy and safety of peri-urethral bulking injections (PBI) with an innovative bulking material (PDMS-U) in women with stress-urinary incontinence (SUI) who are not optimal candidates for mid-urethral sling surgery. MethodsA prospective study was performed in women with SUI who, for several reasons, have a relative contraindication for a mid-urethral sling procedure. These reasons include: (i) recurrent SUI after a prior SUI surgical procedure; (ii) a history of oncologic gynaecological surgery; (iii) a history of neurologic disease resulting in voiding problems; (iv) a maximal flow rate of less than 15mL per second or; (v) women with a contraindication for surgery with general or regional anaesthesia. All women were treated with PBI consisting of PDMS-U, a bulking agent that polymerizes in situ. The primary outcome was subjective improvement, defined as a little better to very much better on the PGI-I. Secondary outcomes included objective cure, disease specific quality of life and adverse events. ResultsSubjective improvement was reported by 18 (90%) of the 20 included patients. The subjective cure rate was 56% and the objective cure rate was 65%. There was a statistically significant improvement of all domain scores of the UDI-6, IIQ-7, and PISQ-12 at 6 months follow up. Abnormal post voiding residual volume (>150mL) was the most common adverse event (40%), but persisted in only one patient, based on the patient's preference for a catheter. ConclusionsPBI with PDMS-U is a viable treatment option in women with a relative contra-indication for mid-urethral sling surger

Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and success of uterus preserving sacrospinous hysteropexy as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse five years after surgery. DESIGN: Observational follow-up of SAVE U (sacrospinous fixation versus vaginal hysterectomy in treatment of uterine prolapse ≥2) randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Four non-university teaching hospitals, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 204 of 208 healthy women in the initial trial (2009-12) with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher requiring surgery and no history of pelvic floor surgery who had been randomised to sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. The women were followed annually for five years after surgery. This extended trial reports the results at five years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prespecified primary outcome evaluated at five year follow-up was recurrent prolapse of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) stage 2 or higher evaluated by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical failure (recurrent prolapse stage 2 or higher in apical, anterior, or posterior compartment), composite outcome of success (defined as no prolapse beyond the hymen, no bothersome bulge symptoms, and no repeat surgery or pessary use for recurrent prolapse), functional outcome, quality of life, repeat surgery, and sexual functioning. RESULTS: At five years, surgical failure of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery occurred in one woman (1%) after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with eight women (7.8%) after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (difference-6.7%, 95% confidence interval -12.8% to-0.7%). A statistically significant difference was found in composite outcome of success between sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy (89/102 (87%) v 77/102 (76%). The other secondary outcomes did not differ. Time-to-event analysis at five years showed no differences between the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: At five year follow-up significantly less anatomical recurrences of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery were found after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. After hysteropexy a higher proportion of women had a composite outcome of success. Time-to-event analysis showed no differences in outcomes between the procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: trialregister.nl NTR1866

The Impact of Sacrospinous Hysteropexy and Vaginal Hysterectomy With Suspension of the Uterosacral Ligaments on Sexual Function in Women With Uterine Prolapse:A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Comparative Study

Contains fulltext : 171669.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)INTRODUCTION: Studies on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery show conflicting evidence regarding the impact of uterus preservation and hysterectomy on sexual function and no large randomized trials with long-term follow-up have been published on this topic. AIMS: The aim of this secondary analysis was to evaluate and compare sexual function after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the SAVE U trial data, a multicenter trial in 4 nonuniversity hospitals in the Netherlands comparing sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in primary surgery of uterine prolapse stage II or higher. Primary outcome of the original study was recurrent prolapse stage II or higher of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) evaluated by POP-Q examination in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical recurrences, functional outcome, complications, hospital stay, postoperative recovery, and sexual functioning. Data from patients who had completed the POP/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12) at baseline and 24 months after surgery were used in the present trial. Total, subscale, and individual question analyses were performed. The SAVE U trial is registered in the Dutch trial registry, number NTR1866. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences and changes in sexual function 24 months after surgery, measured by the PISQ-12 questionnaire. RESULTS: Between November 2009 and March 2012, 208 women were randomized between sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 103) and vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments (n = 105). Of these, 99 women completed questionnaires at baseline and after 24 months follow-up and were included in the present study. During a follow-up period of 24 months, no significant differences in total PISQ-12 scores were observed between the groups. After both interventions the item "avoidance of intercourse due to prolapse" significantly improved, as did the physical subscale of the PISQ-12 questionnaire. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in overall sexual functioning (total PISQ-12 scores) between uterus-preserving sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments after a follow-up period of 24 months

Variation in the practice of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Dutch survey

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic techniques for pelvic organ prolapse surgery using mesh are gaining interest. A standard approach or published guideline for the laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is lacking. The purpose of this study is to assess the variation between Dutch gynecologists in executing LSH and LSC. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the technique of LSH and LSC. All members of the Dutch Society for Gynecological Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery and the Dutch Society for Urogynecology were invited by email to participate in a web-based survey. RESULTS: With 357 respondents, the response rate was 71%. Of the respondents, a total of 49 gynecologists (13.7%) perform LSH and/or LSC. Gynecologists who perform both procedures use the same surgical technique for LSH and LSC. There are variations among gynecologists on several key points such as the level of dissection along the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina, the type of mesh used, the type of sutures used, the tension of the implanted mesh and reperitonealization of the mesh. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high practice variation in LSH and LSC performed by a selected group of Dutch gynecologists. Different methods have been described in the literature and there is no consensus on how to perform these procedures. A well-designed prospective study or randomized controlled trial with regard to the specific parts of these procedures is needed to provide evidence for the best surgical technique. The outcomes of these studies will help to establish evidence-based guidelines

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair:a randomised controlled trial

The objective was to evaluate the functional outcome after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus open sacrocolpopexy in women with vault prolapse. A multicentre randomised controlled trial was carried out at four teaching and two university hospitals in the Netherlands in women with symptomatic vault prolapse requiring surgical treatment. Participants were randomised for laparoscopic or open sacrocolpopexy. Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life measured using the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI) questionnaire at 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome and perioperative data. We needed 74 participants to show a difference of 10 points on the prolapse domain of the UDI 12 months after surgery (power of 80%, alpha error 0.05). Between 2007 and 2012, a total of 74 women were randomised. Follow-up after 12 months showed no significant differences in domain scores of the UDI between the two groups. After 12 months, both groups reported a UDI score of 0.0 (IQR: 0-0) for the domain "genital prolapse", which was the primary outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.93). The number of severe complications was 4 in the laparoscopic group versus 7 in the open abdominal group (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.50-2.27). There was less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay after laparoscopy; 2 (IQR 2-3) versus 4 (IQR 3-5) days, which was statistically different. There was no significant difference in anatomical outcome at 12 months. Our trial provides evidence to support a laparoscopic approach when performing sacrocolpopexy, as there was less blood loss and hospital stay was shorter, whereas functional and anatomical outcome were not statistically differen

An Observational Study on the Efficacy and Complications of a Transvaginal Single-Incision Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate a new-generation, single-incision transvaginal mesh (TVM) procedure on anatomical and functional outcomes and complication rates in women with symptomatic cystoceles. Materials and Methods: Sixty-five patients with symptomatic cystoceles (POP-Q stage ≥2) were included in a prospective, multicenter study in the Netherlands to evaluate the TVM procedure using the Nuvia® Anterior Device (Bard Medical, Crawley, UK). The primary endpoint was anatomical cure after 12 months (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification [POP-Q] points Aa and Ba at-2 cm or higher). Secondary endpoints were subjective reduction of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) noted on 3 disease-specific quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires (Urogenital Distress Inventory [UDI], Incontinence Impact Questionnaire [IIQ], and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire [PISQ-12]); complications; and serious adverse events during and after surgery up to 12 months later. Repeated-measurement analyses were used for POP-Q scores and QoL outcomes. Results: Anterior and apical measurements improved after surgery with anatomical success rates of 70.6% and 60.8% after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Four patients (7.7%) developed vaginal mesh exposure and 2 (3.8%) developed significant pain related to the mesh. Three (5.7%) needed reintervention due to these complications. The apical recurrence rate was 4%, and 2 patients underwent repeat POP surgery. Functional outcomes on UDI, IIQ, and PISQ-12 were satisfactory with significant improvements in QoL reported on all questionnaires. Conclusions: This study demonstrated significant improvement in anatomical and functional outcomes with low complication rates. The single-incision approach to TVM surgery can be a valid option for patients with complex recurrent prolapse