OBJECTIVE(S): The aim of our retrospective study was to determine if systematic placement of a posterior mesh, in addition to an anterior vesico-vaginal mesh, is necessary for laparoscopic treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: A laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy was performed in 108 patients, including 55 patients with a concurrent laparoscopic Burch procedure (50.9%). We compared 33 patients treated with a single anterior mesh (SAM) and 71 treated with a double, anterior and posterior, mesh (DM). RESULTS: The difference between the SAM and DM groups was statistically significant in terms of posterior compartment failure (rectocele and/or enterocele): 31.3% and 5.9%, respectively (p=0.0006). This significant difference persisted in the Burch (B) group (p=0.001), but not in the non-Burch (NB) group (p=0.98). Among the SAM group, this difference between the B and NB groups, was significant (57.1% versus 0%; p=0.0015) and above all not a single posterior failure was observed in the NB group. CONCLUSION(S): The placement of a posterior mesh, if highly effective, appeared unnecessary in the absence of an associated Burch procedure or a patent posterior prolapse. The posterior mesh also increased risk of postoperative complications and side effects.
OBJECTIVE(S): The aim of our retrospective study was to determine if systematic placement of a posterior mesh, in addition to an anterior vesico-vaginal mesh, is necessary for laparoscopic treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: A laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy was performed in 108 patients, including 55 patients with a concurrent laparoscopic Burch procedure (50.9%). We compared 33 patients treated with a single anterior mesh (SAM) and 71 treated with a double, anterior and posterior, mesh (DM). RESULTS: The difference between the SAM and DM groups was statistically significant in terms of posterior compartment failure (rectocele and/or enterocele): 31.3% and 5.9%, respectively (p=0.0006). This significant difference persisted in the Burch (B) group (p=0.001), but not in the non-Burch (NB) group (p=0.98). Among the SAM group, this difference between the B and NB groups, was significant (57.1% versus 0%; p=0.0015) and above all not a single posterior failure was observed in the NB group. CONCLUSION(S): The placement of a posterior mesh, if highly effective, appeared unnecessary in the absence of an associated Burch procedure or a patent posterior prolapse. The posterior mesh also increased risk of postoperative complications and side effects.
Authors: Filip Claerhout; Jan Paul Roovers; Paul Lewi; Jasper Verguts; Dirk De Ridder; Jan Deprest Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2009-05-29
Authors: Mèlanie N van IJsselmuiden; Manon H Kerkhof; René P Schellart; Marlies Y Bongers; Wilbert A Spaans; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: A Germain; F Thibault; M Galifet; M-L Scherrer; A Ayav; J Hubert; L Brunaud; L Bresler Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Mohamed N Akl; Jaime B Long; Dobie L Giles; Jeffrey L Cornella; Paul D Pettit; Anita H Chen; Paul M Magtibay Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 4.584