INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to compare anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in a teaching hospital. Sixty-eight women with stage ≥3 anterior vaginal wall prolapse according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system were assessed, randomized, and analyzed. Patients were randomized to anterior colporrhaphy with vaginal colposuspension (n = 35) or transvaginal mesh (n = 33). Primary outcome was objective cure rate of the anterior vaginal wall, defined as POP-Q ≤1 at 2 years. Secondary outcomes were functional results, quality-of-life (QoL) scores, mesh-related morbidity, and onset of urinary incontinence. RESULTS: The anatomical result for point Ba was significantly better at 2 years in the mesh group (-2.8 cm) than in the colposuspension group (-2.4 cm) (p = 0.02). Concerning POP-Q stages, the anatomical success rate at 2 years was 84.4 % for colposuspension and 100 % for mesh (p = 0.05). There were 5 anatomic recurrences (15.6 %) in the colposuspension group. The erosion rate was 6 % (n = 2). No significant difference was noted regarding minor complications. Analysis of QoL questionnaires showed overall improvement in both groups, with no significant difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: The vaginal colposuspension technique of anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair gave good anatomical and functional results at 2 years. Transobturator vaginal mesh gave better 2-year anatomical results than vaginal colposuspension, with overall improvement in QoL in both groups.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to compare anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in a teaching hospital. Sixty-eight women with stage ≥3 anterior vaginal wall prolapse according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system were assessed, randomized, and analyzed. Patients were randomized to anterior colporrhaphy with vaginal colposuspension (n = 35) or transvaginal mesh (n = 33). Primary outcome was objective cure rate of the anterior vaginal wall, defined as POP-Q ≤1 at 2 years. Secondary outcomes were functional results, quality-of-life (QoL) scores, mesh-related morbidity, and onset of urinary incontinence. RESULTS: The anatomical result for point Ba was significantly better at 2 years in the mesh group (-2.8 cm) than in the colposuspension group (-2.4 cm) (p = 0.02). Concerning POP-Q stages, the anatomical success rate at 2 years was 84.4 % for colposuspension and 100 % for mesh (p = 0.05). There were 5 anatomic recurrences (15.6 %) in the colposuspension group. The erosion rate was 6 % (n = 2). No significant difference was noted regarding minor complications. Analysis of QoL questionnaires showed overall improvement in both groups, with no significant difference between them. CONCLUSIONS: The vaginal colposuspension technique of anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair gave good anatomical and functional results at 2 years. Transobturator vaginal mesh gave better 2-year anatomical results than vaginal colposuspension, with overall improvement in QoL in both groups.
Authors: John N Nguyen; Sharon M Jakus-Waldman; Andrew J Walter; Terry White; Shawn A Menefee Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Shawn A Menefee; Keisha Y Dyer; Emily S Lukacz; Amanda J Simsiman; Karl M Luber; John N Nguyen Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Carlos A Delroy; Rodrigo de A Castro; Márcia M Dias; Paulo C Feldner; Maria Augusta T Bortolini; Manoel J B C Girão; Marair G F Sartori Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Demisew Amenu Sori; Stephan Bretones; Georges Mellier; Bertrand de Rochambeau Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 2.742
Authors: Cássia R T Juliato; Maira F G Mazzer; Juliana M Diniz; Catarina H S Farias; Edilson B de Castro Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Constantin M Durnea; Vasilios Pergialiotis; James M N Duffy; Lina Bergstrom; Abdullatif Elfituri; Stergios K Doumouchtsis Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 2.894