Literature DB >> 32253489

Long-term pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and mesh exposure following sacrocolpopexy.

Tonya N Thomas1, Emily R W Davidson2, Erika J Lampert2, Marie F R Paraiso2, Cecile A Ferrando2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Large, long-term studies are needed to compare pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence and mesh exposure following all modes of sacrocolpopexy (open, robotic, and laparoscopic). We hypothesized that the prevalence of recurrent POP and mesh exposure does not differ between modes of sacrocolpopexy.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study with a cross-sectional, prospective survey. Participants were surveyed regarding complications, retreatments, and symptoms following sacrocolpopexy. Baseline characteristics, POP recurrence, mesh exposure, and survey responses were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 709 participants met the criteria. Median time from sacrocolpopexy to last follow-up for all participants was 0.5 years (2 days to 13.4 years). 15.0% experienced recurrent stage 2 or greater POP or underwent retreatment (open 11.7% [95% CI 7.8-17.2%]; robotic 21.1% [95% CI 15.6-27.9%]; laparoscopic 13.8% [95% CI 10.6-17.9%]; p = 0.03). After adjusting for baseline differences there was no significant difference among groups (p = 0.30). 5.3% experienced mesh and/or suture exposure (mesh n = 19, suture n = 10, mesh and suture n = 8) with no significant difference among groups (open 7.7% [95% CI 4.6-12.5%]; robotic 3.6% [95% CI 1.7-7.6%]; laparoscopic 4.9% [95% CI 3.1-7.7%]; p = 0.20). Median time from sacrocolpopexy to survey completion was 6.5 (1.6-13.4) years. 9.2% reported evaluation or treatment for recurrent POP (open 6.3% [95% CI 2.1-16.8%]; robotic 12.5% [95% CI 6.9-21.5%]; laparoscopic 8.5% [5.1-13.8%]; p = 0.44). 6.9% reported evaluation or treatment for mesh exposure (open 6.0% [95% CI 2.1-16.2%]; robotic 3.9% [95% CI 1.3-10.7%]; laparoscopic 8.6% [5.2-13.9%]; p = 0.38).
CONCLUSIONS: Objective and patient-reported long-term prevalence of POP recurrence and mesh exposure are low following all modes of sacrocolpopexy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mesh complication; Mesh exposure; Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy; Pelvic organ prolapse; Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence; Sacrocolpopexy

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32253489     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04291-8

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review.

Authors:  Stephanie Deblaere; Jan Hauspy; Karen Hansen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 1.932

2.  New "Wrinkle Method" for Intracorporeal Anterior Vaginal Wall Plication during Sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Sa Ra Lee; Ju Hee Kim; Sung Hoon Kim; Hee Dong Chae
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 4.241

3.  Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy.

Authors:  Marine Lallemant; A T M Grob; M Puyraveau; M A G Perik; A H H Alhafidh; M Cosson; R Ramanah
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Long term outcomes of laparoscopic sacro/colpo-hysteropexy with and without rectopexy for the treatment of prolapse.

Authors:  Ehud Grinstein; Yara Abdelkhalek; Nikolaus Veit-Rubin; Ohad Gluck; Bruno Deval
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 2.894

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.