Literature DB >> 28710613

Self-retaining support implant: an anchorless system for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse-2-year follow-up.

Gil Levy1, Anna Padoa2, Zoltan Fekete3, George Bartfai3, Laszlo Pajor3, Mauro Cervigni4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The search for an improved vaginal mesh prompted the development of a new anchorless implant. The objective was to report on outcome after 2 years of a technique using a self-retaining support (SRS) implant.
METHODS: Patients with anterior vaginal wall prolapse, with/without apical prolapse, were recruited. Participants underwent surgical repair using the SRS device. Demographic data, pre-surgical Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scoring, quality of life (QoL) questionnaires (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form 20 [PFDI-20], Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire 12 [PISQ-12]), and surgical data were collected. Patients were followed at 2 weeks, 2, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Objective anatomical success was defined using the NIH criteria.
RESULTS: Twenty women were recruited for the study with an average age of 62.1 years and an average parity of 4.0 deliveries. Average BMI was 28. Pre-operative mean POP-Q measurements were Aa =1.40 (-1 to 3) cm, Ba = 2.3 (-1 to 6) cm and C = 0.4 (-7 to 6) cm. Surgical time averaged 31.2 min. Estimated blood loss averaged 165 ml. No intra-operative complications were observed. One case (5%) of frame erosion was documented 8 months after surgery. At 2 years' follow-up, mean POP-Q measurements were: Aa = -2.95 (-3 to -2) cm, Ba = -2.85 (-3 to -2) cm, and C point -6.90 (-10 to -3) cm. Seventeen (85%) patients had stage 0 and 3 patients (15%) had stage 1. No mesh erosions or chronic pelvic pain were documented at follow-up. The total PFDI score at follow-up was decreased by 92.8 points (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years' follow-up, the SRS implant was found to be safe, showing no intra-operative or immediate post-operative complications. All women presented with POP-Q measurements of the anterior and apical compartment at normal value (Ba ≤ -2 cm) and statistically significant subjective improvement.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pelvic organ prolapse; Self-retaining support implant; Vaginal mesh

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28710613     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3415-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  15 in total

1.  Vaginal mesh contraction: definition, clinical presentation, and management.

Authors:  Benjamin Feiner; Christopher Maher
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Transvaginal repair of stage III-IV cystocele using a lightweight mesh: safety and 36-month outcome.

Authors:  Renaud de Tayrac; Majid Brouziyne; Gérard Priou; Guy Devoldère; Gérard Marie; Joël Renaudie
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Cadaver study of anchorless implant for the treatment of anterior and apical vaginal wall prolapse.

Authors:  Mauro Cervigni; Alfredo Ercoli; Gil Levy
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 2.435

4.  Two years follow up of 270 patients treated by transvaginal mesh for anterior and/or apical prolapse.

Authors:  Florence Hugele; Laure Panel; Camille Farache; Amgad Kashef; Arnaud Cornille; Christophe Courtieu
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 2.435

5.  Prolapse repair using the Elevate™ kit: prospective study on 70 patients.

Authors:  H Azaïs; C Jean Charles; P Delporte; P Debodinance
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Validation of Hebrew versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire, and the Urgency, Severity and Impact Questionnaire.

Authors:  Lior Lowenstein; Gil Levy; Keren Or Chen; Shimon Ginath; Alex Condrea; Anna Padoa
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.091

Review 7.  Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Christopher Maher; Benjamin Feiner; Kaven Baessler; Corina Christmann-Schmid; Nir Haya; Jane Marjoribanks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-09

8.  Vaginal prolapse repair surgery augmented by ultra lightweight titanium coated polypropylene mesh.

Authors:  Alfredo L Milani; Wieteke M Heidema; Wanda S van der Vloedt; Kirsten B Kluivers; Mariella I J Withagen; Mark E Vierhout
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 2.435

9.  Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Thomas L Wheeler; Joeseph Schaffer; Zhen Chen; Cathie Spino
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse.

Authors:  Rebecca U Margulies; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Dee E Fenner; Edward J McGuire; J Quentin Clemens; John O L Delancey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-10-09       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  1 in total

1.  Surgical treatment of advanced anterior wall and apical vaginal prolapse using the anchorless self-retaining support implant: long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Gil Levy; Anna Padoa; Naama Marcus; Anat Beck; Zoltan Fekete; Mauro Cervigni
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-01-13       Impact factor: 1.932

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.