| Literature DB >> 21222112 |
Richard I Reid1, Hui You, Kehui Luo.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study aims to compare native tissue abdominal and vaginal paravaginal repair, and to investigate whether surgical outcome was independent of operative route.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21222112 PMCID: PMC3072484 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1347-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urogynecol J ISSN: 0937-3462 Impact factor: 2.894
Fig. 1The value of site-specific repair using just the native tissues was explored in 111 women who had either vaginal or abdominal paravaginal repair. The study sample was drawn from a population of 275 women who had site-specific prolapse repairs over an 11-year period (from 1997 to 2007). In a companion article, biomaterial usage was subsequently evaluated by comparing 108 women augmented vaginal paravaginal repairs VPVRs (90 women having a remodelling biomesh and 18 women having an Amid class I polypropylene mesh) with the 59 native tissue vaginal operations described in this paper
Group comparison of baseline demographics and potentially confounding factors
| Baseline demographics and potential confounders | Abdominal paravaginal repair | Vaginal paravaginal repair |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age | 51.7 years | 61.9 years | <0.0001a |
| Overt prolapse in a second vaginal compartment | 87% | 76% | 0.168(ns) |
| Concomitant hysterectomy | 37% | 24% | 0.141(ns) |
| Prior hysterectomy | 40% | 44% | 0.695(ns) |
| Prior failed surgery | 33% | 34% | 0.893(ns) |
| Suspected collagen weakness | 21% | 22% | 0.911(ns) |
| Severe incontinence | 48% | 39% | 0.335(ns) |
| BMI > 25 Kg/M2 | 58% | 69% | 0.196(ns) |
aSignificant
Potential confounding factors—logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis
| Factor | 95% CI of odds ratio |
| Significant difference at 5%? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logistic regression on short-term outcome | ||||
| Before adjusting for confounders | VPVR vs. APVR | 0.818–9.243 | 0.102 > 0.05 | No |
| After adjusting for confounders | VPVR vs. APVR | 0.651–8.176 | 0.357 > 0.05 | No |
| Cox modelling on long-term outcome | ||||
| Before adjusting for confounders | VPVR vs. APVR | 1.065–2.683 | 0.026 < 0.05 | Yes |
| After adjusting for confounders | VPVR vs. APVR | 1.029–2.708 | 0.038 < 0.05 | Yes |
Estimated effects of repair method before and after adjusting for potential confounding factors (age and multi-compartment prolapse)
Fig. 2Kaplan–Meier survival curves, showing good durability for both methods of paravaginal repair during follow up of up to 10 years. APVR was 19% more effective than VPVR over the long term
Potential confounding factors—contingency analysis on concomitant apical surgery
| Long-term outcome | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Success | Failure | ||
| Abdominal paravaginal repair | |||
| No additional apical support needed | 6 (86%) | 1 | 7 |
| Concomitant apical support by uterosacral ligament culdoplasty | 22 (92%) | 2 | 24 |
| Concomitant apical support by open sacrocolpopexy, using polypropylene mesh | 18 (86%) | 3 | 21 |
| Total | 46 | 6 | 52 |
| Four year log rank | |||
| Vaginal paravaginal repair | |||
| No additional apical support needed | 10 (71%) | 4 | 14 |
| Concomitant apical support by uterosacral ligament culdoplasty | 10 (71%) | 4 | 14 |
| Concomitant apical support by unilateral sacrospinous fixation | 21 (70%) | 10 | 31 |
| Total | 41 | 18 | 59 |
| Four year log rank | |||
Log rank test analysis of concomitant apical compartment support vs. cystocele recurrence by repair group (APVR vs. VPVR)
Summary of other similar studies reported previously
| Author | Same site anatomic failure | Major complication rate (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure rate (%) | Mean follow-up (months) | ||
| Shull [ | 4/62 (7.1) | 19 | 7/62 (11.3) |
| Mallipeddi [ | 4/45 (17.1) | 20 | 6/45 (8.9) |
| Young [ | 24/100 (24.0) | 11 | 24/100 (24.0) |
| Viana [ | 5/66 (7.6) | 12 | 0/66 (0.0) |
| Reid [ | 18/59 (30.5) | 59 | 1/59 (1.7) |
| Total | 57/332 (17.2) | 23 | 38/332 (11.4) |
Same-site anatomic failure rates, mean lengths of follow-up and major complication rates in five clinical series reporting on native tissue vaginal paravaginal repair. Failure rate in this series is substantially higher than quoted by Shull [18], Mallipeddi [13], or Viana [20]. This difference probably relates to our stringent definition of failure and our long duration of follow-up (with recurrences occurring as long as 38 months post-surgery)
Fig. 3Kaplan–Meier survival curves, with an approximation of the possible reparative benefits of non-specific scar formation secondary to dissection of the anterior compartment. Applying this corrective factor, there was an additional reparative benefit attributable to site-specific re-suture of the predicted fascial avulsions. The VPVR survival curve perhaps represents the ceiling of what is attainable through simple re-suture of native tissues. Analogy with hernia repair suggests that further improvement in anatomic outcome will require strategies to limit suture line tension and overcome collagen weakness in the adjacent connective tissues [30]