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

Wang X.,Hu C.,Hua K.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.09.753

IF: 4.314

2018-01-01

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pelvic reconstructive surgery with mesh versus LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

LeFort Colpocleisis for Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Xiaojuan Wang,Changdong Hu,Yisong Chen,Keqin Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03969-y

2019-01-01

International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract:Introduction and hypothesis The causes of recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are sufficiently understood. However, few studies are available evaluating reoperation for recurrence of POP. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent POP. Methods We reviewed data from patients with recurrent POP who underwent LerFort colpocleisis at a center between March 2012 and April 2017. Quality of life was assessed using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire (PFDI-20) scores. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I) was used to assess self-perceived success and subjective measures of satisfaction. The Clavien-Dindo classification (CD) was used to assess the safety of the procedure. Chi-square and paired t-tests were used to compare the same patients before and after treatment in the follow-up. Results Twenty-six patients with recurrent POP after previous prolapse surgery underwent LeFort colpocleisis. Most of these patients had at least one comorbidity. The mean age (years) was 71.8 (7.3). The mean time to recurrent POP was 5.602 (3.643) years. There were no intraoperative bladder lesions or rectal lesions. At mean follow-up of 33.1 months, all patients had no recurrence (< stage 2), significant resolution of awareness of prolapse ( P < 0.05), and significantly improved satisfaction on PGI-I after surgery. Minor complications were classified as CD II level in four cases (15.4%). Conclusion This study suggests that LeFort colpocleisis is feasible and safe for recurrent POP, especially in older women with comorbidities.
Long-term treatment outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery versus anterior-posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Qi Cao,Yi-Song Chen,Jing-Xin Ding,Chang-Dong Hu,Wei-Wei Feng,Wei-Guo Hu,Ke-Qin Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12040

2013-01-01

Abstract:Background In spite of rapid growth in the use of vaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery, there are few reports on the long-term efficacy and safety of mesh-augmented repairs. Aims To compare the long-term outcomes of modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) versus traditional anteriorposterior colporrhaphy (APC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods This retrospective cohort study involved 158 women who underwent surgical management of prolapse with MPFR (n=84) or APC (n=74) in the period between January 2007 and June 2008. Main outcome measures included pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement, Short Form-20 Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) questionnaires, perioperative outcomes, complications and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. Statistical analysis included comparison of means (Wilcoxon test or Student's t-test) and proportions (2 test). Results Anatomical success rate for MPFR and APC was 88.1 versus 64.9% (P=0.001), with a median follow-up of 55 versus 56months (range 4966months, P=0.341). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and a greater improvement was seen in MPFR group than in APC group (P=0.013). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mesh erosion rate was 3.6%. Conclusion Modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh had better anatomical and functional outcomes than APC at 45years postoperation, as an alternative, cheap and effective treatment option to mesh kits for the management of POP.
Long‐term Treatment Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Anterior–posterior Colporrhaphy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Qi Cao,Yisong Chen,Jing Ding,Chengchao Hu,Wen Feng,Weiguo Hu,Keqin Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12040

2013-01-01

Abstract:In spite of rapid growth in the use of vaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery, there are few reports on the long-term efficacy and safety of mesh-augmented repairs.To compare the long-term outcomes of modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) versus traditional anterior-posterior colporrhaphy (APC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).This retrospective cohort study involved 158 women who underwent surgical management of prolapse with MPFR (n = 84) or APC (n = 74) in the period between January 2007 and June 2008. Main outcome measures included pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement, Short Form-20 Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) questionnaires, perioperative outcomes, complications and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. Statistical analysis included comparison of means (Wilcoxon test or Student's t-test) and proportions (χ(2) test).Anatomical success rate for MPFR and APC was 88.1 versus 64.9% (P = 0.001), with a median follow-up of 55 versus 56 months (range 49-66 months, P = 0.341). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and a greater improvement was seen in MPFR group than in APC group (P = 0.013). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mesh erosion rate was 3.6%.Modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh had better anatomical and functional outcomes than APC at 4-5 years postoperation, as an alternative, cheap and effective treatment option to mesh kits for the management of POP.
Study on Mesh-Augmented Vaginal Reconstructive Surgery in Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Jin-song Han,Kun Zhang,Fu-li Zhu,Ying Yao,Hua-mao Liang,Li-fei Zhou,Hong-yan Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2011.02.005

2011-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate clinical outcome and complications of mesh-augmented vaginal reconstructive surgery in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.METHODS:From Feb 2007 to Jan 2009, mesh-augmented vaginal reconstructive surgery were performed on 66 women with pelvic organ prolapse stage III-IV. Pre and postoperative symptoms, pelvic organ prolapse quantitation (POP-Q) stage and pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20 (PFDI-20) measurements were studied to assess anatomic and quality-of-life outcome. Operative complications were also analyzed.RESULTS:Totally 65 patients underwent successful surgeries. The rate of follow-up was 97% (63/65) with a median follow-up of 17.2 months. Subjective cure rate and objective cure rate were both 97% (61/63) at 6 and 12 months after surgeries, 51 women completed PFDI-20 measurements and scores were 102 ± 50 before surgery, 16 ± 21 at 6 months and 15 ± 20 at 12 months. It reached statistical difference when scores were compared before and after surgeries (P < 0.05). Among 66 patients, 2 patients underwent organ injuries, 2 had recurrent prolapse, 4 had mesh-related complications and 1 had severe de novo stress urinary incontinence. Six patients underwent second surgery.CONCLUSIONS:Mesh-augmented vaginal reconstructive surgery in treatment of pelvic organ prolapsed brought satisfied clinical outcome. The incidence of mesh-related complications was low and secondary operative interventions were effective.
Comparison of two female pelvic floor reconstructive surgeries

XUE Xiu-ping,FAN Li-lin,LEI Gang,HAN Ke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-4695.2011.21.008

2011-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare the efficacy of prolift mesh placement with traditional.hysterectomy for pelvic floor reconstruction.Methods Fifty patients with pelvic floor dysfunction were selected in Huaian Maternal and Child health Care Hospital from January 2009 to December 2010.Prolift mesh placement and transvaginal hysterectomy and colporrhaphia anterior-posterior were performed in 20 and 30 patients respectively.The efficacy of the two pelvic floor reconstructive surgeries was evaluated.Results The patients were followed up for 6 to 24 months after surgery.No severe complication was found in all patients.After floor reconstructive surgery with prolift mesh,one patient had perineal and lower abdominal symptoms,.two had urinary incontinence,and one had constipation.No infection and erosion occurred.POP-Q index achieved 100.The recovery rate was 100%.After traditional pelvic floor reconstructive surgery,five patients had perineal and lower abdominal symptoms,four had urinary incontinence,and one had constipation.POP-Q index was decreased.The recovery rate was 76.7%.Conclusion The pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with prolift mesh was safe,convenient and can bring good short-term medical effects.
Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Vs Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: 1 Year Results of a Multicenter Randomized Study

Juan Chen,Tao Xu,Xiaowei Zhang,Keqin Hua,Mei Ji,Luwen Wang,Huicheng Xu,Jinghe Lang,Abraham Morse,Lan Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20200803.12

2020-01-01

Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Abstract:Backgrounds: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is considered the most durable operation for the repair of advanced uterovaginal prolapse. However, there is still disagreement about whether the efficacy and safety of vaginally implanted mesh to address advanced uterovaginal prolapse is comparable to sacrocolpopexy. Our goal was to evaluate the anatomical and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal mesh in a randomized trial in China. Methods: A multicenter randomized trial was carried out at 6 tertiary hospitals in China. Patients with symptomatic advanced prolapse (stages III-IV) were enrolled. Between January 2013 and June 2014, a total of 100 women were randomized. 40 laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy procedures and 42 transvaginal mesh procedures were performed. Patients were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or transvaginal mesh. Results: At 1 year, the anatomic success rate was 92.5% in the laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy arm, compared with 83.3% in the transvaginal mesh group (P=0.35). Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy was associated with better apical support. The laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy group had a longer operative time. Mesh exposures occurred in 2.5% of laparoscopic repairs vs. 2.4% of transvaginal mesh repairs. Conclusion: In a randomized trial, 1-year objective cure rates were not statistically different. However the success rate was 9.2% higher for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. The two procedures had comparable mesh exposure rates, and other complications were rare in both groups. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01762384). The date of registration was Jan 7th, 2013. URL was https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01762384?term=NCT01762384&draw=2&rank=1.
The Clinical Efficacy Of Biologic Mesh And Synthetic Mesh For Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery

T. Cao,X. Yang,X. Sun,W. Cheng,J. Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13390/j.issn.1672-1861.2017.02.004

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare clinical efficacy of biologic mesh and synthetic mesh in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse(POP).Methods 96 patients with POP at more than Ⅱ of POP quantitation (POP-Q) staging system undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery were selected and divided into two groups.Each group has 48 cases.One group was treated with Surgisis and the other was Avaulta.The perioperative,operative and postoperative data were compared.Fesults The average ofoperation time in Surgisis group was (126.4 ± 39.8)min,which was significantly more than the Avaulta.The average amount of bleeding volume in Surgisis [(130.5 ± 98.4) ml]and Avaulta [(30.5 ± 10.1) ml] had significant difference.while the postoperative temperature,urine tube indwelling time,residual urine volume of the two groups had no difference (P ＞ 0.05).At one-year follow up,the objective recurrence rate of Surgisis group is higher (25.0％ vs 8.3％),but the subjective recurrence rate is lower (6.3％).After operation,the quality of life in two groups was largely improved.Comparing the sexual quality of life,the score of Surgisis group was higher than that in Avaulta (P ＜ 0.05).There was no mesh exposure in Surgisis group,while four patients had mesh erosion in Avaulta group.They all underwent surgery.Conclusions Comparing the synthetic mesh,biologic mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery can improve the quality of life,reducing the occurrence of complications,although it takes longer time and more intraoperative blood loss in surgery.
1473 Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Sis Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

X Wang,Y Chen,K Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.441

IF: 4.314

2019-01-01

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Abstract:Study ObjectiveTransvaginal mesh (TVM) results in a greater anatomic cure but more complications. We aimed to compare laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) plus colporrhaphy with a small intestine submucosa (SIS) graft versus TVM for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).DesignRetrospective study, with more than one year follow-up.SettingTertiary university-affiliated hospital.Patients or ParticipantsBetween September 2015 and November 2016, 76 patients with advanced POP who underwent LSC plus colporrhaphy with an SIS graft or TVM.InterventionsLSC plus colporrhaphy with an SIS graft or TVM.Measurements and Main ResultsData regarding surgical procedures and patient demographic variables were recorded. Anatomical outcomes were evaluated using POP quantification (POP-Q). Functional outcomes related to POP and sexual life were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7). Chi-squared and Student's t-tests were used for two independent samples. 76 patients were enrolled in this study with 26 patients in the LSC plus colporrhaphy with an SIS graft group (group A) and 50 patients with TVM group (group B). All patients in both groups demonstrated significant improvement in anatomical outcomes (p < 0.05) after surgery. PFDI-20 scores were significantly improved 12 months after operation in both groups (p < 0.001). PISQ-12 scores were significantly improved in patients after surgery, especially patients in group A (p < 0.001). Mesh exposure occurred in both groups as follows: 8 patients (30.7%) in group A and 5 patients (10%) in group B.ConclusionEven though both surgeries showed excellent results for subjective and objective outcomes, the use of an SIS graft might increase the exposure of mesh. We do not recommend LSC plus colporrhaphy with an SIS graft for advanced multiple-compartments prolapse.
Clinical Analysis of Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Opreation in 31 Cases With SUI and POP

李环,吴瑞芳,李瑞珍,曾荔萍

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-1870.2009.04.020

2009-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To analyse the effect of pelvic floor reconstruction operation with Prolene mesh and ProliftTM in 31 cases with stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Beijing University Shenzhen Hospital. Methods:31 cases with stress urinary incontinence andⅠ-Ⅲ stage pelvic organ prolapse of Beijing University Shenzhen Hospital in June 2006 to June 2008 were operated with pelvic floor reconstruction operation.The effects and complications of the operation were retrospectively analyzed. Results:The average operation time was 117.58 minutes.The average time for mesh implants was 77.90 minutes. The average hemorrhage was 180.48 ml. The average hospitalization period was 10.85 days. The period of follow-up after operation was 1-22 months. The cases with stress urinary incontinence were cured basically, and the complication were disappeared or improved obviously. In cases of pelvic organ prolapse after operation, anterior vaginal wall Ⅰstage prolapse were occurred in three cases, posterior vaginal wall Ⅰstage prolapse were occurred in one case, and anterior vaginal wall mesh eroded in one case. Conclusion:Pelvic floor reconstruction operation can be applied in correcting stress urinary incontinence and any degree of pelvic organ prolapse. Whether to preserve uterine or not, the operation can improve the entire or partial structures and functions of pelvic floor. The operation is safe and feasible, and the short-time effect is well. However, the long time affect need further observation .
Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Small Intestine Submucosa Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Junyan Wang,Xiaojuan Wang,Keqin Hua,Yisong Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5213/inj.1938014.007

2019-01-01

International Neurourology Journal

Abstract:Purpose Transvaginal mesh (TVM) results in a greater anatomic cure but more complications. We aimed to compare laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) plus colporrhaphy with the small intestine submucosa (SIS) graft versus TVM for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods Patients with advanced POP who underwent LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft or TVM at a center between September 2015 and November 2016 were studied. Anatomical outcomes were evaluated using POP quantification. Functional outcomes related to POP and sexual life were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Data regarding surgical procedures and patient demographic variables were recorded. Chi-square and Student t -tests were used for 2 independent samples. Results A total of 76 patients were enrolled in this study with 26 patients in the LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft group (group A) and 50 patients with TVM group (group B). All patients in both groups demonstrated significant improvement in anatomical outcomes (P<0.05) after surgery. PFDI-20 scores were significantly improved 12 months after operation in both groups (P<0.001). PISQ-12 scores were significantly improved in patients after surgery, especially patients in group A (P<0.001). Mesh exposure occurred in both groups as follows: 8 patients (30.7%) in group A and 5 patients (10%) in group B. Conclusions Even though both surgeries showed excellent results for subjective and objective outcomes, the use of an SIS graft might increase the exposure of polypropylene mesh. We do not recommend LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft for advanced multiple-compartments prolapse.
Quality of Life, Functional Outcomes, and Recurrence After Resection Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse Repair

Anna R. Spivak,Marianna Maspero,Rebecca Y. Spivak,Jessica Sankovic,Stephanie Norman,Caitlyn Deckard,Scott R. Steele,Tracy L. Hull

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000003467

2024-09-27

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract:Resection rectopexy and ventral mesh rectopexy are widely accepted surgical options for the treatment of rectal prolapse, however reports on long-term recurrence rates and functional outcomes are lacking.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Midterm Prospective Comparison of Vaginal Repair with Mesh Vs Prolift System Devices for Prolapse

Yi-Song Chen,Qi Cao,Jing-Xin Ding,Chang-Dong Hu,Wei-Wei Feng,Ke-Qin Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.06.015

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To compare midterm clinical outcome using modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) vs Prolift devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).Study design: This prospective observational cohort study involved 223 women with POP stages III-IV who were assigned to either MPFR (n = 131) or Prolift device (n = 92). Outcomes were analyzed at 6 and 12 months and the last follow-up visit postoperatively. Main outcome measures included pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement, Short Form-20 Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) questionnaires, perioperative outcomes, complications, and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. Statistical analysis included comparison of means (Wilcoxon test or Student's t-test) and proportions (Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis was carried out using Cox proportional hazard model.Results: At follow-up (median, 36 months: range, 17-58 months), anatomic success for MPFR and Prolift was 87.07% and 93.41%, respectively (P = 0.1339). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and PFDI-20 scores were lower in the Prolift group than the MPFR group (P = 0.03). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups and the prevalence of urinary symptoms decreased postoperatively in both groups. The cost of operation, however, was RMB (sic)11,882.86 yuan for MPFR and (sic)23,617.59 yuan for Prolift (P = 0.00).Conclusions: MPFR and Prolift had comparable anatomic outcomes, Prolift had better functional outcomes than MPFR, but MPFR is much cheaper than Prolift. MPFR is an alternative, cheap and effective surgical treatment option to mesh-kits for the management for POP. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Evaluation and Management of Complications after Transvaginal Mesh Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Wang X.,Chen Y.,Hua K.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.08.158

IF: 4.314

2017-01-01

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Abstract:Study Objective: To identify risk factors for complications after mesh-augmented repair for prolapse and evaluate the outcomes of vaginal mesh removal.
Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Dongmei Wei,Ping Wang,Xiaoyu Niu,Xia Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13908

Abstract:Aim: To compare total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh (TVM) and laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: Six hundred and seventy patients with POP stage 3 and 4 underwent LSC (n = 350) or TVM (n = 320) at the West China Second Hospital, Sichuan University between January 2011 and December 2016. Retrospective analysis was done to compare the POP-Q value before operation and 6 months, 5 years after operation, also compare the, patient global impression of change (PGI-C), pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7). Patients were followed for a median 36 months. Thirty-five patients in the LSC and 37 in the TVM groups were lost to follow-up. Results: Preoperative POP value and disease course were similar (P = 0.075). The LSC group was younger (52.8 ± 6.8 vs. 63.9 ± 8.7 years, P = 0.037). Intraoperative bleeding was smaller in the LSC group (74.4 ± 33.2 vs. 150.4 ± 80.3 mL, P < 0.01), with longer operation time (130.0 ± 34.1 min vs 100.4 ± 40.4 min, P < 0.035). The patients were followed for 10-60 months (median, 36 months). Postoperative PISQ-12 (P < 0.01) was better in the LSC group. PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 were improved after operation in both groups. Objective satisfaction (94.9% vs 91.9%, P > 0.05) and recurrence rate (8.4% vs 5.1%, P = 0.064) were similar. No infection or fistula occurred after operation in both groups. The complication rate of intraoperative bladder injury and postoperative perineal pain in LSC group was lower than those in the TVM group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: LSC showed no serious adverse events and led to higher postoperative satisfaction than TVM in selected patients. Nevertheless, treatment should be selected in accordance with the willingness and condition of each patient.
Effect of Pelvic Reconstruction Surgery with Synthetic Mesh on Improving the Short Term Quality of Life in Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse

梁华茂,韩劲松,张坤,朱馥丽,吕英杰,郑蓉

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1861.2008.01.003

2008-01-01

Abstract:Objective evaluate the effect of pelvic reconstructive surgery with synthetic mesh on patients' quality of life(QOL).Methods From March 2006 to August 2007,women with pelvic organ prolapse(POPQ stageⅢ~Ⅳ)underwent pelvic reconstructive surgery with synthetic mesh in our department were studied.Pelvic symptoms,recurrence of prolapse and QOL were evaluated preoperatively and at postoperative follow-up using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory short form 20(PFDI20).Results The mean age of 39 patients,who could be evaluated for QOL,was 68.1 years(55～84 years);mean weight index was 23.6(16.8～30.4).The preoperative diagnosis were:anterior compartment defect(92.3%),middle compartment defect(74.4%)and posterior compartment defect(33.3%).Preoperative PFDI20 score was(15.05±6.77),demonstrated an obvious impact on their quality of life.Patients had statistically lower scores when they were followed up at 2 months,6 months,1 year and 1.5 years after the operation,(1.48±4.20),(4.44±5.93),(2.46±2.60)and(3.40±2.79)respectively,all P0.05.While no significant differences presented among scores at different postoperative time(P0.05).Pelvic organ prolapse distress inventory(POPDI6),colorectalanal distress inventory 8(CARDI8)and urinary distress inventory 6(UDI6)scores decreased significantly after the operation(all P0.05).However,two patients suffered from moderate or severe stress urine incontinence,increasing of UDI6 scores.The mean follow-up was 7.1 months(2~17 month),with a follow-up rate of 92.3%(36/39).The short term objective cure rate was 100%,subjective cure rate was 97.2% and 2.8%(1/36)reported subjective recurrence.No mesh erosion or infection occurred.Conclusions Pelvic reconstruction surgery with mesh present good effect on improving the short term quality of life in patients.However,further follow-up is needed to observe the long term effects.
Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa Mesh for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapsed.

Ting-Ting Cao,Xiu-Li Sun,Shi-Yan Wang,Xin Yang,Jian-Liu Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.192784

IF: 6.133

2016-01-01

Chinese Medical Journal

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major health concern that affects women. Surgeons have increasingly used prosthetic meshes to correct POP. However, the most common used is synthetic mesh, and absorbable mesh is less reported. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS).METHODS:Consecutive forty POP patients who met the inclusion criteria underwent pelvic reconstruction surgery with SIS between March 2012 and December 2013. The patients' clinical characteristics were recorded preoperatively. Surgical outcomes, measured by objective and subjective success rates, were investigated. We evaluated the quality of life (QOL) using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7). Sexual QOL was assessed by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12).RESULTS:At postoperative 12 months, the subjective recurrence rate (7.5%) was much lower than the objective recurrence rate (40.0%). Postoperatively, no erosion was identified. One underwent a graft release procedure because of urinary retention, and one had anus sphincter reconstruction surgery due to defecation urgency. Another experienced posterior vaginal wall infection where the mesh was implanted, accompanied by severe vaginal pain. Estrogen cream relieved the pain. One patient with recurrence underwent a secondary surgery with Bard Mesh because of stage 3 anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Scoring system of PFDI-20 was from 59.150 ± 13.143 preoperatively to 8.400 ± 4.749 postoperatively and PFIQ-7 was from 73.350 ± 32.281 to 7.150 ± 3.110, while PISQ-12 was from 15.825 ± 4.050 to 12.725 ± 3.471.CONCLUSIONS:QOL and the degree of subjective satisfaction were significantly improved postoperatively. Anterior repair deserves more attention because of the higher recurrence rate. The long-term follow-up of the patient is warranted to draw firm conclusion.
Prolene mesh in treating incisional hernia of abdominal wall

朱玲华,牟一平,李君达

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-7664.2001.02.003

2001-01-01

Abstract:Objective To investigate the efficacy of prolene mesh in treating incisional hernia.Methods Prolene mesh was used to repair 14 cases of incisional hernia in abdominal wall,and 3 of them were recurrent incisional hernia.Results All were healed without immediate infection of incisional wound.When they were followed for 3～54 months,none of them had recurrent incisional hernia.Conclusion Prolene mesh was effective in treating incisional hernia and easy to process.
[Analysis of Mesh Related Complications after Trans-Vaginal Mesh-Augmented Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery].

Kun Zhang,Jin-song Han,Fu-li Zhu,Ying Yao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2012.09.007

2012-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the complications after trans-vaginal mesh-augmented pelvic floor reconstruction in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).METHODS:From February 2007 to October 2009, vaginal mesh procedures were performed on 91 women with POP stage III-IV in Peking University Third Hospital. The operative complications were studied.RESULTS:Ninety patients underwent successful surgery among 91 patients. Follow-up rate was 94% (85/90) at a median follow-up of 28.4 (15 - 44) months. One patient underwent intraoperative organ injuries, and 10 patients had postoperation mesh-related complications. The rate of mesh-related complications was 2% (2/85), 2% (2/85), 4% (3/85), 4% (3/85) on 6, 6 - 12, 12 - 24 and more than 24 months following up, respectively. Seven patients underwent conservative treatment and the symptoms were improved. Three patients underwent the second surgery, and the symptoms were cured or relieved.CONCLUSION:The incidence of mesh-related complications was low, and interventions were effective in vaginal mesh procedure.
[Clinical Application of Pelvic Floor Reconstruction in Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer].

Wei Ge,Gang Chen,Songsong Jiang,Hao Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2018.01.014

2018-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the safety and clinical significance of pelvic floor reconstruction in extralevator abdominoperineal excision(ELAPE) for advanced low rectal cancer.METHODS:The clinical efficacy was retrospectively analyzed in 30 patients with low rectal cancer who underwent ELAPE from January 2013 to December 2016 in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, the affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School. There were 21 male patients and 9 female, with an average age of 61.7 years old. We used 13*15 cm Biodesign biologic meshes(Cook, China) for the reconstruction and the procedure involved soaking in saline solution for 5 minutes and fixation of the mesh to the cut edges of the levators by non-absorbable 2-0 sutures. A perineal drain was used and was removed when drainage was minimal. Potassium permanganate was used for hip bath after removing the stitches. The surgical procedure, postoperative complications, prognosis and follow-up of all these patients were documented.RESULTS:The operations of all patients were completed successfully. ELAPE could remove more para cancer tissues in the distant rectum. There was no rectum perforation, and the circumferential resection margins of all specimens were proved to be negative. During the follow-up of 21 months, only 2 patients suffered incision infection and healed uneventfully after strengthening the dressing. No one developed perineal breakdown, bulge or intestinal obstruction, as well as local recurrence and pelvic floor hernia. There was also no complication related to mesh. The average hospitalization time was 10 days (9-15 days).CONCLUSIONS:The ELAPE could render a low occurrence of intraoperative perforations and circumferential resection margins. Reconstruction of pelvic floor with biologic meshmight lower the complication incidences associated with the perineal region.
Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Versus Transvaginal Mesh Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Wang, Xinyan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-023-04003-8

2024-01-09

Indian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:The study aims to compare the objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and transvaginal mesh (TVM) surgery. A retrospective study of 62 women with pelvic organ prolapse stage III and IV among patients who underwent LSC ( N = 30) and TVM ( N = 32). The pelvic floor quality of life questionnaires (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12) and the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) were used to assess the subjective and objective outcomes, respectively. The intraoperative details and long-term surgery complications were assessed as well. The patients were reviewed after the operation for a gynecological examination, treatment, and functional outcomes evaluation. Compared to preoperative POP-Q measurement, except for PB and TVL, the postoperative objective outcomes improved significantly for the two groups ( P < 0.05). The postoperative mean for PB increased significantly in the TVM group than in the LSC group, 2.75 ± 0.49 Vs 2.45 ± 0.68, ( P = 0.04), and the postoperative mean for point C was more improved in LSC than in the TVM group, (− 5.68 ± 2.76 Vs − 5.59 ± 2.07), respectively. The PFDI-20 questionnaire shows that the post-operative subjective outcomes were significantly improved compared to preoperative status in LSC and TVM ( P < 0.05), except CRADI-8 questionnaire for LSC ( P = 0.4). The PFIQ-7 improved significantly in TVM ( P < 0.05), except CRAIQ-7 ( P = 0.5). However, there were no statistically significant in the LSC group ( P > 0.05). Patients who went for the LSC procedure had a longer operation time and greater blood loss than TVM. The TVM surgery offered a higher patient satisfaction for colorectal-anal symptoms than LSC. The patients who underwent LSC had a more extended operating time and greater blood loss, while those who underwent TVM had a higher rate of dyspareunia.

surgery

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

LeFort Colpocleisis for Recurrent 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

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

Comparison of two female pelvic floor reconstructive surgeries

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

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

1473 Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Sis Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

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

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Small Intestine Submucosa Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Quality of Life, Functional Outcomes, and Recurrence After Resection Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse Repair

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

Evaluation and Management of Complications after Transvaginal Mesh Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

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

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.

Prolene mesh in treating incisional hernia of abdominal wall

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

[Clinical Application of Pelvic Floor Reconstruction in Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer].

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Versus Transvaginal Mesh Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse