Shawn A Menefee1, Keisha Y Dyer, Emily S Lukacz, Amanda J Simsiman, Karl M Luber, John N Nguyen. 1. From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente San Diego, the Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California San Diego, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, California; and the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente Downey, Downey, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report 2-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing standard anterior colporrhaphy with reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair using xenograft or synthetic mesh in women with symptomatic anterior vaginal wall prolapse. METHODS:Women with stage II or greater anterior prolapse were randomly assigned to three groups: anterior colporrhaphy, paravaginal repair with porcine dermis, or polypropylene mesh. Outcomes of prolapse stage, quality of life, degree of bother, and sexual symptoms were assessed by blinded examiners and validated measures at 2 years. Anatomic failure was defined as anterior prolapse at stage II or greater. Composite failure was defined as symptoms of "bulge" and anterior prolapse at stage II or greater. Power calculations determined 33 participants per arm would detect a 40% difference in anatomic success between standard and grafted repair. χ, Mann-Whitney U, and Student's t tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Of the 99 participants enrolled, 78 (79%) completed a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Those with mesh had a significantly lower anatomic failure rate (18%) than both the porcine (46%, P=.015) and colporrhaphy groups (58%, P=.002). All groups had statistically similar reductions in their prolapse and urinary symptom subscale scores. Composite failure was not statistically different between groups: 13% colporrhaphy, 12% porcine, and 4% mesh. Two reoperations for anterior prolapse occurred in the porcine group. Mesh erosion rates were 14% for the mesh group. CONCLUSION:Vaginal paravaginal repair with polypropylene mesh has the lowest anatomic failure rate when compared with that with xenograft and anterior colporrhaphy without differences in composite failures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT0139171. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To report 2-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing standard anterior colporrhaphy with reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair using xenograft or synthetic mesh in women with symptomatic anterior vaginal wall prolapse. METHODS:Women with stage II or greater anterior prolapse were randomly assigned to three groups: anterior colporrhaphy, paravaginal repair with porcine dermis, or polypropylene mesh. Outcomes of prolapse stage, quality of life, degree of bother, and sexual symptoms were assessed by blinded examiners and validated measures at 2 years. Anatomic failure was defined as anterior prolapse at stage II or greater. Composite failure was defined as symptoms of "bulge" and anterior prolapse at stage II or greater. Power calculations determined 33 participants per arm would detect a 40% difference in anatomic success between standard and grafted repair. χ, Mann-Whitney U, and Student's t tests were used for comparisons. RESULTS: Of the 99 participants enrolled, 78 (79%) completed a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Those with mesh had a significantly lower anatomic failure rate (18%) than both the porcine (46%, P=.015) and colporrhaphy groups (58%, P=.002). All groups had statistically similar reductions in their prolapse and urinary symptom subscale scores. Composite failure was not statistically different between groups: 13% colporrhaphy, 12% porcine, and 4% mesh. Two reoperations for anterior prolapse occurred in the porcine group. Mesh erosion rates were 14% for the mesh group. CONCLUSION:Vaginal paravaginal repair with polypropylene mesh has the lowest anatomic failure rate when compared with that with xenograft and anterior colporrhaphy without differences in composite failures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT0139171. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
Authors: Jennifer T Anger; Aqsa A Khan; Karyn S Eilber; Erin Chong; Stephanie Histed; Ning Wu; Chris L Pashos; J Quentin Clemens Journal: Urology Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: K Baeßler; T Aigmüller; S Albrich; C Anthuber; D Finas; T Fink; C Fünfgeld; B Gabriel; U Henscher; F H Hetzer; M Hübner; B Junginger; K Jundt; S Kropshofer; A Kuhn; L Logé; G Nauman; U Peschers; T Pfiffer; O Schwandner; A Strauss; R Tunn; V Viereck Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.915