M Rudnicki1, E Laurikainen2, R Pogosean3, I Kinne4, U Jakobsson5, P Teleman6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lidköping Hospital, Lidköping, Sweden. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ahus University Hospital, Ahus, Norway. 5. Centre for Primary Healthcare Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skane University Hospital, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the 1-year (previously published) and 3-year objective and subjective cure rates, and complications, related to the use of a collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse against a conventional anterior repair. DESIGN: Randomised controlled study. SETTING:Six departments of obstetrics and gynaecology in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. POPULATION: A total of 138 women, of 55 years of age or older, admitted for stage ≥2 anterior vaginal wall prolapse. METHODS: The women scheduled for primary anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery were randomised between conventional anterior colporrhaphy and surgery with a collagen-coated prolene mesh. All patients were evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) assessment before and after surgery. Symptoms related to pelvic organ prolapse were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Objective cure, defined as POP-Q stage <2 prolapse at the 1- and 3-year follow-ups. Furthermore, mesh exposure and dyspareunia were also recorded. RESULTS: In total, 138 patients (70 from the mesh group versus 68 from the conventional anterior colporrhaphy group) out of 160 (86.3%) participated in the 3-year follow-up. POP-Q revealed an objective anatomic cure for 88.1 and 91.4%, respectively, in the mesh group at the 1- and 3-year follow-ups, compared with 39.9 and 41.2% in the colporrhaphy group. No difference between the groups was observed regarding PFIQ-7, PFDI-20, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) scores. The number of mesh exposures did not change during the study period and all exposures were minor. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that although the objective outcome was superior in the mesh group, the use of mesh had no impact on the subjective outcome. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: POP-Q deteriorates after anterior prolapse surgery but remains stable in women with mesh implantation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the 1-year (previously published) and 3-year objective and subjective cure rates, and complications, related to the use of a collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse against a conventional anterior repair. DESIGN: Randomised controlled study. SETTING: Six departments of obstetrics and gynaecology in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. POPULATION: A total of 138 women, of 55 years of age or older, admitted for stage ≥2 anterior vaginal wall prolapse. METHODS: The women scheduled for primary anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery were randomised between conventional anterior colporrhaphy and surgery with a collagen-coated prolene mesh. All patients were evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) assessment before and after surgery. Symptoms related to pelvic organ prolapse were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Objective cure, defined as POP-Q stage <2 prolapse at the 1- and 3-year follow-ups. Furthermore, mesh exposure and dyspareunia were also recorded. RESULTS: In total, 138 patients (70 from the mesh group versus 68 from the conventional anterior colporrhaphy group) out of 160 (86.3%) participated in the 3-year follow-up. POP-Q revealed an objective anatomic cure for 88.1 and 91.4%, respectively, in the mesh group at the 1- and 3-year follow-ups, compared with 39.9 and 41.2% in the colporrhaphy group. No difference between the groups was observed regarding PFIQ-7, PFDI-20, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) scores. The number of mesh exposures did not change during the study period and all exposures were minor. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that although the objective outcome was superior in the mesh group, the use of mesh had no impact on the subjective outcome. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: POP-Q deteriorates after anterior prolapse surgery but remains stable in women with mesh implantation.
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