Abstract:Importance: Transvaginal mesh (TVM) can increase the durability of vaginal surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and may be indicated in certain situations despite concerns about mesh-related complications. In addition, the expense of commercial mesh kits has limited their use. The effectiveness, safety, and cost of a self-cut mesh procedure compared with a commercial mesh-kit procedure for the surgical treatment of women with POP is unclear. Objective: To assess the 1-year effectiveness and safety of self-cut titanium-coated polypropylene mesh compared with a precut commercial mesh kit for the transvaginal surgical treatment of women with severe symptomatic POP. Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 11 hospitals in 8 provinces of China. A total of 336 women with symptomatic stage 3 to 4 POP were enrolled between January 22, 2018, and November 11, 2019, with follow-up through December 11, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive a TVM procedure using either self-cut mesh (self-cut mesh group) or a precut commercial mesh kit (mesh-kit group), both of which used the same titanium-coated polypropylene mesh. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome measure was composite surgical success at 1 year, which was defined as the absence of vaginal bulge symptoms, no additional retreatment for POP, and no vaginal prolapse at or beyond the hymen. Secondary outcomes included symptom-specific pelvic floor function and quality-of-life measures as well as perioperative complications, including mesh-related complications and hospitalization costs. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo system (with grade 1 indicating any deviation from the normal postoperative course but not requiring grade 2-4 interventions; grade 2, need for pharmacological treatment, blood transfusion, and/or total parenteral nutrition; grade 3, the need for surgical, endoscopic, and/or interventional radiological procedures; and grade 4, life threatening). Results: Among 336 female participants (mean [SD] age, 63.3 [5.9] years; all of Chinese ethnicity), 169 patients were randomized to the self-cut mesh group, and 167 were randomized to the mesh-kit group. Three patients were unavailable for follow-up after 1 year. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 162 women (95.9%) in the self-cut mesh group had outcomes that met the definition of surgical success; this result was noninferior to the surgical success rate observed in the mesh-kit group (146 women [87.4%]; risk difference, 8.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-14.3%; P = .006). The frequency of Clavien-Dindo grade 1 to 3 perioperative complications was not significant between groups (12 of 166 women [7.2%] in the self-cut mesh group vs 20 of 161 women [12.4%] in the mesh-kit group; P = .14). Vaginal mesh exposure rates in women examined at 1 year were similar (4 women [2.4%] in the self-cut mesh group vs 8 women [4.8%] in the mesh-kit group; P = .23). Median (IQR) total hospitalization costs were $3663.00 ($3258.90-$4495.10) in the self-cut mesh group vs $6144.00 ($5434.90-$7160.20) in the mesh-kit group (P < .01), representing savings of $2481.00 (40.4%) with the use of self-cut mesh. Conclusions and relevance: In this clinical trial, the composite surgical success rate of a self-cut mesh procedure was noninferior to that of a commercial mesh-kit procedure using the same titanium-coated polypropylene mesh and reduced hospitalization expenses by 40.4%. These findings suggest that the use of self-cut mesh procedures may be advantageous for the surgical treatment of some women with severe POP, particularly those in countries with low and middle income. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03283124.

The systematic review on using Mesh versus traditional colporrhaphy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

The Clinical Efficacy Of Biologic Mesh And Synthetic Mesh For Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery

Study on Mesh-Augmented Vaginal Reconstructive Surgery in Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Long-term treatment outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery versus anterior-posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Long‐term Treatment Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Anterior–posterior Colporrhaphy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Comparison of two female pelvic floor reconstructive surgeries

Comparison outcomes of three surgical procedures in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse and analysis of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence

Midterm Prospective Comparison of Vaginal Repair with Mesh Vs Prolift System Devices for Prolapse

[Analysis of Mesh Related Complications after Trans-Vaginal Mesh-Augmented Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery].

Effect of Pelvic Reconstruction Surgery with Synthetic Mesh on Improving the Short Term Quality of Life in Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa Mesh for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapsed.

Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Clinical Analysis of Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Opreation in 31 Cases With SUI and POP

Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery with Mesh Versus LeFort Colpocleisis for Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Vs Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: 1 Year Results of a Multicenter Randomized Study

Surgical Outcomes and Quality of Life Post-Synthetic Mesh-Augmented Repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in the Chinese Population.

[Prospective Multi-Center Study in "xiehe" Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery for Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse].

The application of mesh in female pelvic reconstruction surgery

A 14-year multi-institutional collaborative study of Chinese pelvic floor surgical procedures related to pelvic organ prolapse

Effectiveness of Self-cut vs Mesh-Kit Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh for Transvaginal Treatment of Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Multicenter Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial

[Biopharmaceuticals and biosimilars in oncology: where are we?].