Daniel Altman1,2, Tomi S Mikkola3,4, Karl Möller Bek5, Päivi Rahkola-Soisalo3, Jonas Gunnarsson6, Marie Ellström Engh7, Christian Falconer8. 1. Stockholm Urogynecological Clinic, Kommendörsgatan 5, 114 48, Stockholm, Sweden. daniel.altman@ki.se. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Danderyd Hospital, Danderyd, Sweden. daniel.altman@ki.se. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Folkhälsan Research center, Helsinki, Finland. 5. Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Danderyd Hospital, Danderyd, Sweden.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to assess safety and clinical outcomes in women operated on using the Uphold™ Lite Vaginal Support System. METHODS: We carried out a 1-year, multicenter, prospective, single cohort study of 207 women with symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage ≥2 apical pelvic organ prolapse, with or without concomitant anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Safety data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. Anatomical outcome was assessed by the POP-Q and subjective outcomes by the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory after 2 months and 1 year using a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance. Pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: The overall rate of serious complications was 4.3 % (9 out of 207 patients), including 3 patients with bladder perforations, 1 with bleeding >1,000 ml, 2 who had undergone re-operations with complete mesh removal because of pain, and 3 surgical interventions during follow-up because of mesh exposure. POP-Q stage ≤1 after 1 year was 94 % and subjective symptom relief was reported by 91 % of patients (p < 0.001). Pain after 2 months and 1 year was 60 % lower compared with the preoperative mean (p < 0.001). Minor complications occurred in 20 women (9.7 %) and were dominated by lower urinary tract dysfunction. No predisposing risk factors for complications were found. CONCLUSIONS: The Uphold™ Lite procedure in women with apical pelvic organ prolapse provided satisfactory restoration of vaginal topography and symptom relief. However, serious complication rates were largely comparable with those of other transvaginal mesh kits.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to assess safety and clinical outcomes in women operated on using the Uphold™ Lite Vaginal Support System. METHODS: We carried out a 1-year, multicenter, prospective, single cohort study of 207 women with symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage ≥2 apical pelvic organ prolapse, with or without concomitant anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Safety data were collected using a standardized questionnaire. Anatomical outcome was assessed by the POP-Q and subjective outcomes by the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory after 2 months and 1 year using a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance. Pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: The overall rate of serious complications was 4.3 % (9 out of 207 patients), including 3 patients with bladder perforations, 1 with bleeding >1,000 ml, 2 who had undergone re-operations with complete mesh removal because of pain, and 3 surgical interventions during follow-up because of mesh exposure. POP-Q stage ≤1 after 1 year was 94 % and subjective symptom relief was reported by 91 % of patients (p < 0.001). Pain after 2 months and 1 year was 60 % lower compared with the preoperative mean (p < 0.001). Minor complications occurred in 20 women (9.7 %) and were dominated by lower urinary tract dysfunction. No predisposing risk factors for complications were found. CONCLUSIONS: The Uphold™ Lite procedure in women with apical pelvic organ prolapse provided satisfactory restoration of vaginal topography and symptom relief. However, serious complication rates were largely comparable with those of other transvaginal mesh kits.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complications; Mesh; Pelvic organ prolapse
Authors: Manhan K Vu; Juraj Letko; Kelly Jirschele; Adam Gafni-Kane; Aimee Nguyen; Honyan Du; Roger P Goldberg Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: V Bjelic-Radisic; T Aigmueller; O Preyer; G Ralph; I Geiss; G Müller; P Riss; P Klug; M Konrad; G Wagner; M Medl; W Umek; P Lozano; K Tamussino; A Tammaa Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Mariëlla I Withagen; Mark E Vierhout; Jan C Hendriks; Kirsten B Kluivers; Alfredo L Milani Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Edward J Stanford; Robert D Moore; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Christophe Courtieu; James C Lukban; Eduardo Bataller; Bernhard Liedl; Suzette E Sutherland Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Renaud de Tayrac; Michel Cosson; Laure Panel; Clara Compan; Mohammed Zakarya Zemmache; Sophie Bouvet; Laurent Wagner; Brigitte Fatton; Géry Lamblin Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 1.932