Douglas Luchristt1, Alison C Weidner2, Nazema Y Siddiqui2. 1. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Duke University, 5324 McFarland Drive, Suite 310, Durham, NC, 27707, USA. Douglas.H.Luchristt@gmail.com. 2. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Duke University, 5324 McFarland Drive, Suite 310, Durham, NC, 27707, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Since the discontinuation of manufacture and distribution of surgical mesh for transvaginal prolapse repair, the use of biologic grafts for transvaginal apical suspension has gained renewed attention. However, there is no FDA-approved device and minimal published data describing such an approach. The objective of this video is to describe a technique and to present limited short-term outcomes utilizing a porcine urinary basement membrane (UBM) graft to perform an augmented bilateral sacrospinous ligament suspension (SSLS). METHODS: We present a step-by-step overview of our technique to perform an augmented SSLS with off-label utilization of a 7- × 10-cm porcine UBM graft. We demonstrate graft shaping and application during transvaginal repair along with data describing perioperative outcomes associated with a series of 25 cases performed at our institution using the technique described. RESULTS: No perioperative complications related to the graft were observed in our cohort. The most common postoperative concern was buttock pain, which spontaneously resolved within 6 months. Two individuals (8%) developed recurrent prolapse within 1 year of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The UBM-augmented apical suspension allows for reinforced transvaginal prolapse repair without the use of permanent mesh material. We have observed good clinical success in our application of this technique, but dedicated research assessing long-term outcomes compared with a native tissue repair is needed.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Since the discontinuation of manufacture and distribution of surgical mesh for transvaginal prolapse repair, the use of biologic grafts for transvaginal apical suspension has gained renewed attention. However, there is no FDA-approved device and minimal published data describing such an approach. The objective of this video is to describe a technique and to present limited short-term outcomes utilizing a porcine urinary basement membrane (UBM) graft to perform an augmented bilateral sacrospinous ligament suspension (SSLS). METHODS: We present a step-by-step overview of our technique to perform an augmented SSLS with off-label utilization of a 7- × 10-cm porcine UBM graft. We demonstrate graft shaping and application during transvaginal repair along with data describing perioperative outcomes associated with a series of 25 cases performed at our institution using the technique described. RESULTS: No perioperative complications related to the graft were observed in our cohort. The most common postoperative concern was buttock pain, which spontaneously resolved within 6 months. Two individuals (8%) developed recurrent prolapse within 1 year of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The UBM-augmented apical suspension allows for reinforced transvaginal prolapse repair without the use of permanent mesh material. We have observed good clinical success in our application of this technique, but dedicated research assessing long-term outcomes compared with a native tissue repair is needed.
Authors: Bryan N Brown; Ricardo Londono; Stephen Tottey; Li Zhang; Kathryn A Kukla; Matthew T Wolf; Kerry A Daly; Janet E Reing; Stephen F Badylak Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2011-12-02 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Nathaniel T Remlinger; Thomas W Gilbert; Masahiro Yoshida; Brogan N Guest; Ryotaro Hashizume; Michelle L Weaver; William R Wagner; Bryan N Brown; Kimimasa Tobita; Peter D Wearden Journal: Organogenesis Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Cathryn Ma Glazener; Suzanne Breeman; Andrew Elders; Christine Hemming; Kevin G Cooper; Robert M Freeman; Anthony Rb Smith; Fiona Reid; Suzanne Hagen; Isobel Montgomery; Mary Kilonzo; Dwayne Boyers; Alison McDonald; Gladys McPherson; Graeme MacLennan; John Norrie Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Charles W Nager; Anthony G Visco; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Rebecca G Rogers; Heidi S Harvie; Halina M Zyczynski; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Scott Grey; Amaanti Sridhar; Dennis Wallace Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William D Winkelman; Annliz Macharia; Sonya Bharadwa; Maheetha Bharadwaj; Michele R Hacker; Peter L Rosenblatt Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 2.091