Abstract
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The present study describes an extended follow-up study after 12 years and focusses on subjective outcomes of women who underwent surgery for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse in the randomized index study.
Methods
One hundred and ninety-four (194) women had been randomized in the original study and in the present study, 45 (47%) in the vaginal mesh repair versus 43 (43%) women with conventional vaginal native tissue repair completed the long-term questionnaires. The mesh used was a first-generation non-absorbable mesh kit. All types of conventional vaginal native tissue repairs were allowed, and additional vaginal native tissue repairs were allowed in the mesh group. The questionnaires as applied at baseline were used. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire (PGI-I) was the primary outcome.
Results
At 12 years, 30 (71%) women in the mesh group versus 23 (59%) women in the native tissue repair group reported to be PGI-I (very) much improved (p=0.24). There were no differences found in any of the questionnaire domains. There was, however, a higher number of women who had had additional operations for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, and/or exposure in the mesh group: 18 women (40%) in the mesh group versus 8 women (19%) in the native tissue repair group (p=0.03).
Conclusions
There was no difference in subjective outcome between the groups, but there was a statistically significant higher number of women who had needed further operations. This study confirms that vaginal mesh should not be used in all women with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Urology,Obstetrics and Gynecology
Reference22 articles.
1. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278–83.
2. Denman MA, Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Smith V, Edwards SR, Clark AL. Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:555.e1–5.
3. Reid FM, Aucott L, Glazener CMA, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, et al. PROSPECT: 4- and 6-year follow-up of a randomised trial of surgery for vaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05308-0.
4. Debodinance P, Berrocal J, Clave H, et al. Changing attitudes on the surgical treatment of urogenital prolapse: birth of the tension-free vaginal mesh. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2004;33:577–88.
5. UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: FDA Safety Communication. July 13, 2011. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm