| Literature DB >> 21222113 |
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study aims to answer the question, "Does tissue augmentation improve the mechanical repair of displacement cystourethrocoele?"Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21222113 PMCID: PMC3072475 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1346-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urogynecol J ISSN: 0937-3462 Impact factor: 2.894
Group comparison of baseline demographics and potentially confounding factors
| Baseline demographics and potential confounders | Augmented vaginal paravaginal repair | Native tissue vaginal paravaginal repair |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age | 60.5 years | 61.9 years | 0.309 (n.s.) |
| Multi-compartment prolapse | 101/108 (93.5%) | 45/59 (76.3%) | 0.003 (sig.) |
| Concomitant hysterectomy | 25/108 (23.1%) | 14/59 (23.7%) | 0.932 (n.s.) |
| Prior hysterectomy | 45/108 (41.7%) | 26/59 (44.1%) | 0.764 (n.s.) |
| Prior failed surgery | 41/108 (38.0%) | 20/59 (33.9%) | 0.602 (n.s.) |
| Suspected collagen weakness | 30/108 (27.8%) | 13/59 (22.0%) | 0.417 (n.s.) |
| ≥ Stage 3 descensus | 79/108 (73.1%) | 44/59 (74.6%) | 0.841 (n.s.) |
| Severe incontinence | 34/108 (31.5%) | 23/59 (39.0%) | 0.328 (n.s.) |
| BMI > 25 kg/m2 | 70/108 (64.8%) | 41/59 (69.5%) | 0.541 (n.s.) |
sig. significant, n.s. not significant
Fig. 1Ten-year Kaplan–Meier survival analysis data comparing augmented versus native tissue VPVR. The use of any form of augmentation was significantly better than suture-only repair [logrank χ 2 = 4.48, p value = 0.0343 < 0.05]. Late failures may have continued for longer in the native tissue group, but the heavy censoring of the augmented group must also be taken into account. Nonetheless, both curves eventually flattened—augmented repair at about 19 months and sutured VPVR at about 38 months. These results suggest that the remaining women had obtained a durable cystocoele repair
Time to failure in the 28 unsuccessful repairs
| Procedure | Failure pattern | Total failures | Number in group | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤6 months | 6–12 months | 13–24 months | 25–36 months | 37–48 months | ≥48 months | |||
|
| ||||||||
| Native tissue VPVR | 6 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 59 |
|
| ||||||||
| Gynemesh® or Marlex® augmentation | 3a | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 19 |
| Surgisis® augmentation | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 89 |
| Combined augmentation group | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 108 |
| Total | 11 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 28 | 167 |
aMesh was removed from three cases (one for chronic pain, one for contracture, one for vesico-vaginal fistula). Each of these cases was counted here as a ‘technical failure’ rather than as a ‘technical success with an accompanying complication’
Cox regression analyses of long-term outcome before (A) and after (B) adjusting for the possible confounders
| Analysis of maximum likelihood estimates | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Parameter estimate | Standard error | Wald chi-squared |
| Hazard ratio | 95% hazard range ratio | |
|
| |||||||
| Survival difference between augmented & native tissue VPVR | −0.8429 | 0.4093 | 4.242 | 0.0395a | 0.430 | 0.193 | 0.960 |
|
| |||||||
| Augmented versus native tissue VPVR | −0.7651 | 0.4465 | 2.9363 | 0.0866b | 0.465 | 0.194 | 1.116 |
| Comparing 45–65 year with <45 years age group | 0.3638 | 0.5965 | 0.3721 | 0.542 | 1.439 | 0.447 | 4.632 |
| Comparing >65 year with <45 years age group | 0.2379 | 0.6053 | 0.1545 | 0.694 | 1.269 | 0.387 | 4.155 |
| Sydney distant domicile vs Sydney local | −0.5881 | 0.6562 | 0.8030 | 0.370 | 0.555 | 0.153 | 2.010 |
| Rural domicile vs Sydney local | −0.1614 | 0.4624 | 0.1219 | 0.727 | 0.851 | 0.344 | 2.106 |
| Rural domicile vs Sydney distant | −0.7051 | 0.7734 | 0.8312 | 0.362 | 0.494 | 0.109 | 2.250 |
| Multi-compartment relapse vs single site | −0.3888 | 0.499 | 0.6062 | 0.436 | 1.475 | 0.554 | 3.925 |
aSignificance level of 5% was used here
bSignificance weakened to the 10% significance level because of small sample size and heavy censoring in years 3, 4 and 5
Effect of surgical repair on bulge, stress urinary incontinence and overactive bladder wet symptoms
| Surgical technique | Relevant symptom | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolved | Failed | ||
| Symptom control in the 144 women with | |||
| Augmented VPVR | 86 (93.5%) | 6 | 92 |
| Native tissue VPVR | 42 (80.8%) | 10 | 52 |
| Total | 128 | 16 | 144a |
| Ultimate | |||
| Augmented VPVR | 86 (79.6%) | 22 | 108 |
| Native tissue VPVR | 41 (69.5%) | 18 | 59 |
| Total | 127 | 40 | 167 |
| Ultimate symptom control in 109 women with | |||
| Augmented VPVR | 45 (62.5%) | 27 | 72 |
| Native tissue VPVR | 16 (43.2%) | 21 | 37 |
| Total | 61 | 48 | 109b |
a Twenty-three of the 167 women did not complain of bulge discomfort, reducing subject number to 144
bFifty-eight of the 167 women did not complain of bulge discomfort, reducing subject number to 109
The ‘Hernia Principles’
| The “Hernia Principles” | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Traditional principles were primarily concerned with dissective technique and gentleness of tissue handling | |
| Avoid wound infection | The first of the ‘Hernia Principles’ concentrated on how to minimise infection risk, through optimal tissue handling. Important strategies were: gentle sharp dissection, use of fine suture, no mass pedicle ligation and strict avoidance of haematoma or seroma. |
| Protect repair from intra-abdominal pressure | Surgeons of the early 19th century ligated the hernial sac at the external ring, perhaps sacrificing the testicle. The hernial bulge was reduced by imbrication of the external oblique aponeurosis, somewhat analogous to culdoplasty and plication repair of prolapse. Four-year recurrence rates approached 100%, and this strategy was soon abandoned. However, when surgeons learned how to dissect the inguinal canal safely, these concepts evolved into more secure techniques (ligating the hernial sac at the internal ring and narrowing the internal/external rings). |
| Repair tears in investing fascia | In 1887, Bassini conceived of a genuinely curative hernia operation, analogous to site-specific prolapse repair. Instead of obliterating the inguinal canal, Bassini restored the physiological flap valve mechanism of the normal groin. There were two essential dictates: mobilising the |
| Re-anchor the torn investing fascia back onto skeleton | In addition to repairing the tears within transversalis fascia, surgeons also learned to circumvent infero-medial recurrences by stitching the medial parietal wall of Bassini’s repair onto either inguinal or Cooper’s ligament. This strategy is analogous to paravaginal repair of a cystocele. |
|
| |
| Tension-free hernia repair was first used to reduce suture line tension, but serendipitously delivered the benefit of tissue augmentation | |
| Isolate mesh from contact with a hollow viscus | Placing alloplastic mesh in proximity carries a risk of late entero-cutaneous fistula. Hence, proximity to any hollow viscus mandates either a composite synthetic mesh (with a non-adhesive barrier) or a ‘second generation’ biological. |
| Limit bacterial colonisation of the mesh | Multifilament polyester meshes are ‘wettable’—leading to softer scar reactions, but a heightened risk of granulomatous infection, if colonised by bacteria. Conversely, monofilament polypropylene mesh is ‘non-wettable’—leading to harder scar formation, but a partial resistance to bacterial colonisation. Polyester is absolutely contraindicated in anything other than a clean wound. Polypropylene can be placed in a clean contaminated field, but late mesh infection may occur. However second generation remodelling biomesh is safe in all but the most purulent of wounds. |
| Minimise the “compliance mis-match” between mesh and native tissue | Mesh weight, stiffness and construction must suit tissue resilience at the surgical site, and the degree of movement expected at the graft–host interface. In groin hernia, low weight, macroporous, monofilament, polypropylene (Amid type 1) meshes have worked well, but these same materials are less appropriate for the genital tract. |
| Choice of mesh must suit surgical objectives | In planning the surgery, the exact reason why an implant is being used must be a clearly defined objective. In particular, the surgeon must differentiate between using the mesh as a |
| Mesh implant must overlap the defect on all sides | The size and shape mesh must be sufficient to completely cover the hernial defect, and to overlap strong tissue on all sides. As a rule of thumb, hernia surgeons have usually regarded an overlap of 3–5 cm as sufficient. |
| Stabilise against doubling, wrinkling & undue shrinkage | The mesh must be anchored with interrupted permanent sutures, to prevent subsequent inflammatory reaction from shrinking the mesh or from wrinkling it into a painful mass (a “meshoma”). |
| Mesh must be placed in a tension- free manner | Gynaecologists have misinterpreted the term “tension-free” to mean not suturing an implant to adjacent tissues. This is an important error. The correct surgical meaning is that the mesh must be kept mesh loose (to allow for subsequent contracture), and shaped into a slight bowl-like curvature into the mesh (to allow for increased postural tone when the patient is ambulatory). The implant is then secured against movement in any direction with permanent suture, so as to remain tension-free after the patient comes off the operating table. |