Skip to main content
Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal 1/2017

05.07.2016 | Original Article

Native-tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with nonabsorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes

verfasst von: Lene Duch Madsen, Emil Nüssler, Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel, Susanne Greisen, Karl Møller Bek, Marianne Glavind-Kristensen

Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

We evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after treatment of isolated primary rectocele in routine health-care settings using native-tissue repair or nonabsorbable mesh.

Methods

We used prospective data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery and included 3988 women with a primary operation for rectocele between 2006 and 2014: 3908 women had native-tissue repair, 80 were operated with nonabsorbable mesh. No concurrent operations were performed. Pre- and perioperative data were collected from doctors and patients. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated 2 and 12 months after the operation. Only validated questionnaires were used.

Results

One year after native-tissue repair, 77.8 % (76.4–79.6) felt they were cured, which was defined as never or hardly ever feeling genital protrusion; 74.0 % (72.2–75.7) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 84 % (82.8–85.9) reported improvement of symptoms. After mesh repair, 89.8 % (77.8–96.6) felt cured, 69.2 % (54.9–81.3) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 86.0 % (72.1–94.7) felt improvement. No significant differences were found between groups. Organ damage was found in 16 (0.4 %) patients in the native-tissue repair group compared with one (1.3 %) patient in the mesh group [odds ratio (OR) 3.08; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07–20.30]. The rate of de novo dyspareunia after native-tissue repair was 33.1 % (30.4–35.8), comparable with that after mesh repair. The reoperation rate was 1.1 % (0.8–1.5) in both groups.

Conclusion

Most patients were cured and satisfied after native-tissue repair of the posterior vaginal wall, and the patient-reported outcomes were comparable with results after mesh repair. The risk of serious complications and reoperation were comparable between groups.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Dällenbach P (2015) To mesh or not to mesh : a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery. Int J Women’s Heal 7:331–343CrossRef Dällenbach P (2015) To mesh or not to mesh : a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery. Int J Women’s Heal 7:331–343CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Sokol AI, Iglesia CB, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Shveiky D, Bercik R et al (2012) One-year objective and functional outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of vaginal mesh for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(1):86.e1-9CrossRefPubMed Sokol AI, Iglesia CB, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Shveiky D, Bercik R et al (2012) One-year objective and functional outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of vaginal mesh for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(1):86.e1-9CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Badlani G, Shah H (2012) Mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery and their management: a systematic review. Indian J Urol 28(2):129–153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Badlani G, Shah H (2012) Mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery and their management: a systematic review. Indian J Urol 28(2):129–153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Pakbaz M, Mogren I, Löfgren M (2010) Outcomes of cystocele repair surgery in relation to different anesthesia methods. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89(7):876–881CrossRefPubMed Pakbaz M, Mogren I, Löfgren M (2010) Outcomes of cystocele repair surgery in relation to different anesthesia methods. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89(7):876–881CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P et al (2016) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1):10–17. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0 CrossRef Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P et al (2016) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1):10–17. doi:10.​1016/​S0002-9378(96)70243-0 CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Weber AM (2001) The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J 12(3):178–186CrossRef Weber AM (2001) The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J 12(3):178–186CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, Athanasiou S et al (2012) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(5):527–535. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1726-y CrossRefPubMed Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, Athanasiou S et al (2012) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(5):527–535. doi:10.​1007/​s00192-012-1726-y CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat dos Reis Brandão da Silveira S, Haddad J, de Jármy-Di Bella Z, Nastri F, Kawabata M, da Silva Carramão S et al (2015) Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment. Int Urogynecol J 26(3):335–342. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2501-z CrossRefPubMed dos Reis Brandão da Silveira S, Haddad J, de Jármy-Di Bella Z, Nastri F, Kawabata M, da Silva Carramão S et al (2015) Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment. Int Urogynecol J 26(3):335–342. doi:10.​1007/​s00192-014-2501-z CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Peterson JL et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116(2 Pt 1):293–303CrossRefPubMed Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Peterson JL et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116(2 Pt 1):293–303CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J, Lim J, Leong A, Krause H et al (2009) Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 116(10):1380–1386CrossRef Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J, Lim J, Leong A, Krause H et al (2009) Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 116(10):1380–1386CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. Int Braz J Urol 37(5):675CrossRef Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. Int Braz J Urol 37(5):675CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Deffieux X, Letouzey V, Savary D, Sentilhes L, Agostini A, Mares P et al (2015) Prevention of complications related to the use of prosthetic meshes in prolapse surgery: guidelines for clinical practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165(2):170–180. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.09.001 CrossRef Deffieux X, Letouzey V, Savary D, Sentilhes L, Agostini A, Mares P et al (2015) Prevention of complications related to the use of prosthetic meshes in prolapse surgery: guidelines for clinical practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 165(2):170–180. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ejogrb.​2012.​09.​001 CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Native-tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with nonabsorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes
verfasst von
Lene Duch Madsen
Emil Nüssler
Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel
Susanne Greisen
Karl Møller Bek
Marianne Glavind-Kristensen
Publikationsdatum
05.07.2016
Verlag
Springer London
Erschienen in
International Urogynecology Journal / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3072-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

International Urogynecology Journal 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.