| Literature DB >> 35529471 |
Ying-An Zhang1, Wei Wang2, Xiao-Li Li1, Jie Pan3, Zhao-Ai Li1,4.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of traditional vaginal surgery and transvaginal mesh (TVM) surgery on severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We performed a retrospective chart review study of 258 severe POP patients who underwent surgery between November 2010 and September 2016. One hundred forty patients underwent traditional vaginal surgery and 118 TVM surgery. The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitation (POP-Q) staging was used for objective evaluation. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Disease Life Impact Questionnaire Simplified Version-7 (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12) were used for subjective evaluation. Their complications were also recorded. All the data were collected in the outpatient department through the follow-up at 3 months, 1, 3, and 5 years after the operation. Forty patients in the traditional vaginal surgery group and 25 in the TVM group were lost to follow-up. There was no difference in the POP-Q score between the groups (P = 0.346). The recurrence rate increased with follow-up time, reaching nearly 20% in the two groups by 5 years. The TVM group has higher PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores and lower PISQ-12 scores than the traditional vaginal surgery group at six months, 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively (P < 0.001). Mesh exposure has occurred in the TVM group. Both surgeries showed similar objective satisfaction and recurrence rate. However, traditional vaginal surgery has higher subjective satisfaction than TVM in our study and does not risk exposure to prosthetic material.Entities:
Keywords: pelvic organ prolapse; traditional vaginal surgery; transvaginal mesh surgery
Year: 2022 PMID: 35529471 PMCID: PMC9034344 DOI: 10.1515/med-2022-0467
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Med (Wars)
Figure 1Flow chart of follow-up.
Comparison of patient clinical characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative conditions between the two groups
| TVM surgery ( | Traditional vaginal surgery ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 64.0 ± 2.0 | 61.0 ± 2.0 | 0.154 |
| Gravidity | 3.0 ± 1.0 (2–6)* | 3.0 ± 1.0 (1–7) | 0.579 |
| Parity | 2.0 ± 1.0 (1–6) | 2.0 ± 1.0 (1–6) | 0.956 |
| Amount of bleeding (mL) | 179.07 ± 61.78 | 176.82 ± 47.05 | 0.741 |
| Urinary catheter removal time (days) | 5.31 ± 1.02 | 5.24 ± 0.86 | 0.554 |
| Hospital stays (days) | 11.69 ± 1.87 | 11.78 ± 2.02 | 0.706 |
| Duration of surgery (min) | 185.6 ± 23.34 | 134.98 ± 17.37 | <0.001 |
*The data in brackets are the minimum and maximum.
Figure 2Comparison of the recurrence rate between the two groups with follow-up time.
Pre- and postoperative comparison of PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, and PISQ-12 scores between the two groups
| TVM surgery | Traditional vaginal surgery |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before operation | PFDI-20 | 104.70 ± 16.12 | 104.88 ± 15.82 | 0.928 |
| PFIQ-7 | 104.27 ± 19.12 | 101.66 ± 19.14 | 0.276 | |
| PISQ-12 | 29.89 ± 6.95 | 28.71 ± 5.63 | 0.133 | |
| 6 months after operation | PFDI-20 | 39.99 ± 6.52 | 31.40 ± 5.78 | <0.001 |
| PFIQ-7 | 66.56 ± 12.35 | 54.36 ± 12.82 | <0.001 | |
| PISQ-12 | — | — | — | |
| 1 year after operation | PFDI-20 | 30.93 ± 6.47 | 23.42 ± 4.17 | 0.001 |
| PFIQ-7 | 49.23 ± 11.01 | 39.42 ± 10.82 | <0.001 | |
| PISQ-12 | 50.68 ± 5.39 | 55.49 ± 5.78 | <0.001 | |
| 3 years after operation | PFDI-20 | 22.89 ± 4.13 | 16.38 ± 3.39 | <0.001 |
| PFIQ-7 | 29.05 ± 3.06 | 25.06 ± 2.88 | <0.001 | |
| PISQ-12 | 69.63 ± 6.29 | 78.48 ± 7.72 | <0.001 | |
| 5 years after operation | PFDI-20 | 21.54 ± 4.32 | 15.73 ± 3.28 | <0.001 |
| PFIQ-7 | 30.14 ± 3.37 | 25.00 ± 2.37 | <0.001 | |
| PISQ-12 | 69.44 ± 5.67 | 78.43 ± 7.36 | <0.001 |