Christian Falconer1,2, Daniel Altman3, Georgios Poutakidis1,2, Päivi Rahkola-Soisalo4, Tomi Mikkola4,5, Edward Morcos6,7. 1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Danderyd Hospital, 182 88, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, Folkhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland. 6. Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. edward.morcos@sll.se. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Danderyd Hospital, 182 88, Stockholm, Sweden. edward.morcos@sll.se.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare long-term effects of high-volume surgery at a single-center to multicenter use when using a mesh-capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair. METHODS: Five years after surgery 101 (88%) at the single center were compared with 164 (81.2%) in the multicenter trial. Outcome measurements included clinical examination, prolapse-specific symptom questionnaires [Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)] and pain estimation by VAS (0-10). RESULTS: Optimal apical segment outcome was 95% in the single- compared to 83.3% in the multicenter study (p < 0.001). POP recurrence in the anterior and posterior walls (POP-Q, Ba and Bp ≥ 0) was more common at the multicenter as compared to the single center [(19.8% vs 5.4%) and (26% vs 2.7%), (p < 0.001)]. Reoperations for POP and mesh-related complications were more frequent in the multicenter study [31/202 (15.3%) vs 7/116 (6.1%), p < 0.001]. Total PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 scores were comparable between the cohorts. There were no significant differences in overall pain scores in-between the cohorts during follow-up. At the single center, 1/81 patients (1.2%) had VAS 7/10, i.e. severe pain, as compared to 3/131 (2.3%) in the multicenter study (p = 0.277). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high objective and subjective long-term effectiveness of the procedure in both regular use, and at a high-volume center, centralizing the use of a standardized capturing-device guided transvaginal mesh for POP repair reduced secondary interventions by more than half.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare long-term effects of high-volume surgery at a single-center to multicenter use when using a mesh-capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair. METHODS: Five years after surgery 101 (88%) at the single center were compared with 164 (81.2%) in the multicenter trial. Outcome measurements included clinical examination, prolapse-specific symptom questionnaires [Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)] and pain estimation by VAS (0-10). RESULTS: Optimal apical segment outcome was 95% in the single- compared to 83.3% in the multicenter study (p < 0.001). POP recurrence in the anterior and posterior walls (POP-Q, Ba and Bp ≥ 0) was more common at the multicenter as compared to the single center [(19.8% vs 5.4%) and (26% vs 2.7%), (p < 0.001)]. Reoperations for POP and mesh-related complications were more frequent in the multicenter study [31/202 (15.3%) vs 7/116 (6.1%), p < 0.001]. Total PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 scores were comparable between the cohorts. There were no significant differences in overall pain scores in-between the cohorts during follow-up. At the single center, 1/81 patients (1.2%) had VAS 7/10, i.e. severe pain, as compared to 3/131 (2.3%) in the multicenter study (p = 0.277). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high objective and subjective long-term effectiveness of the procedure in both regular use, and at a high-volume center, centralizing the use of a standardized capturing-device guided transvaginal mesh for POP repair reduced secondary interventions by more than half.
Entities:
Keywords:
Effectiveness; Pelvic organ prolapse; Safety; Surgical volume; Transvaginal mesh
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: John K Chan; Austin B Gardner; Katie Taylor; Kevin Blansit; Caroline A Thompson; Rebecca Brooks; Xinhua Yu; Daniel S Kapp Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Stephen T Jeffery; Brita S Kortz; Dakalo Muavha; Nina N Stolwijk; Lamees Ras; Jan-Paul W R Roovers Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 4.137
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 Morcos; Christian Falconer; Emilie Toresson Grip; Kirk Geale; Katarina Hellgren; Georgios Poutakidis; Daniel Altman Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.894