There are safety concerns regarding the use of mesh in vaginal surgery with a call for long-term follow-up data. This study was designed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of vaginal repairs performed for recurrent cystocele using Perigee (non-absorbable trans-obturator) mesh.
A retrospective consecutive cohort of 48 women who underwent surgery for recurrent prolapse between March 2007 and December 2011 in a single centre was reviewed. Satisfaction was assessed using the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I). Symptoms were assessed with the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI). Women were questioned regarding pain, sexual activity and pelvic floor surgery performed since the original procedure and examined for erosion. Women were compared to 25 controls from a consecutive cohort of repeat anterior colporrhapies.
The mean length of follow-up was 6.5 years (78 months; range 48–106). Significantly more women in the mesh group reported that they were “much better” or “very much better” (69 vs 40% p = 0.02). The rate of mesh erosion at follow-up was 11.6%. Two women in the mesh group required surgical excision of eroded mesh in the operating room (4%). The reoperation rate for a combination of de novo stress incontinence, recurrent prolapse and mesh exposure was similar in each group (33% mesh vs 32% native tissue).
A vaginal mesh repair using a non-absorbable trans-obturator mesh has improved satisfaction compared to an anterior colporrhaphy.
Jelovesk J, Barber M (2006) Women seeking treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse have decreased body image and quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1455–1461 CrossRef
Beck R, McCormick S, Nordstrom L (1991) A 25-year experience with 519 anterior colporrhaphy procedures. Obstet Gynecol 78:1011–1018 PubMed
NICE (2008) Surgical repair of vaginal wall prolapse using mesh. Retrieved from http://www.nice.org.uk/IPG267
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD012079. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012079
Food, Drug Administration (FDA) Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh placement for pelvic organ prolapse. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/.../ucm262760.pdf
The Scottish Independent Review of the Use, Safety and Efficacy of Transvaginal Mesh Implants in the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women: Interim Report. www.gov.scot/About/Review/Transvaginal-Mesh-Implants
Cooper J, Bondili A, Deguara C, Siraj N (2013) Vaginal repair with polypropylene mesh compared to traditional colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse: medium-term follow-up. J Gynecol Surg 29:1–6 CrossRef
Karmakar D, Hayward L, Smalldridge J, Lin S (2015) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a long-term prospective study of 218 mesh kit from a single centre. Int Urogynaecol J 26:1161–1170 CrossRef
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (2014) A summary of the evidence on the benefits and risks of vaginal mesh implants. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaginal-mesh-implants-summary-of-benefits-and-risks. Accessed Dec 2017
- A long-term cohort study of surgery for recurrent prolapse comparing mesh augmented anterior repairs to anterior colporrhaphy
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet
Mail Icon II