Urinary and sexual impact of pelvic reconstructive surgery for genital prolapse by surgical route. A randomized controlled trial.
Dyspareunia
Mesh
POP
Pelvic organ prolapse
Sacrocolpopexy
Sacrohysteropexy
Sexual function
Urinary incontinence
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
13
10
2021
accepted:
15
12
2021
pubmed:
20
1
2022
medline:
14
7
2022
entrez:
19
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The main objective of the study was to evaluate the rates of de novo stress urinary (SUI) and postoperative dyspareunia after both sacrocolpopexy/hysteropexy (SCP) and vaginal mesh surgery. A prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label study with two parallel groups treated by either SCP or Uphold Lite vaginal mesh was carried out. Study participants were ≥ 50 and < 80 years old patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage ≥2 who were considered eligible for reconstructive surgery and who were sexually active with no dyspareunia and free from bothersome SUI at presentation. Women were assessed before surgery and at 4-8 weeks and 11-13 months after using validated measures including POP-Q, Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Data were also collected for health economics evaluation. Of the required sample of 156 women, 42 women (19 SCP and 23 vaginal mesh) were only recruited owing to the discontinuation of vaginal mesh worldwide. The median follow-up was 376 days. The rates of bothersome de novo SUI were similar in the SCP and Uphold vaginal mesh groups (15.79 vs 15.00%, OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.22-4.14]). Among 30 sexually active patients at follow-up, the rates of women reporting de novo dyspareunia "usually or always" were 6.7% after SCP vs 13.3% after vaginal mesh (p = 1). Health economics evaluation showed a cost saving of 280€ in favor of the Uphold vaginal mesh technique, but no significant difference in the total cost (2,934.97€ for SCP vs 3,053.26€ for Uphold vaginal mesh). Bothersome de novo SUI and de novo dyspareunia occurred in approximately 15% and 23% of our study cohorts, with no significant difference between sacrocolpopexy/hysteropexy and anterior/apical vaginal mesh surgery. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to the small sample size.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35044477
doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-05071-8
pii: 10.1007/s00192-021-05071-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2021-2030Informations de copyright
© 2022. The International Urogynecological Association.
Références
Fritel X, Varnoux N, Zins M, et al. Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse at midlife, quality of life, and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:609–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181985312 .
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181985312
pubmed: 19300324
pmcid: 2850374
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6 .
doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6
pubmed: 9083302
Lucot JP, Cosson M, Bader G, et al. Safety of vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy for cystocele repair: results of the prosthetic pelvic floor repair randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2018;74:167–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.044 .
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.044
pubmed: 29472143
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2(2):CD012079.
pubmed: 26858090
Vu MK, Letko J, Jirschele K, et al. Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial anatomical and subjective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2012;23:1753–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1780-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1780-5
Letouzey V, Ulrich D, Balenbois E, et al. Utero-vaginal suspension using bilateral vaginal anterior sacrospinous fixation with mesh: intermediate results of a cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:1803–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2748-z .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2748-z
pubmed: 26026465
Altman D, Mikkola TS, Bek KM, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse repair using the Uphold™ vaginal support system: a 1-year multicenter study. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1337–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2973-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-2973-0
pubmed: 26874525
Lucot JP, Cosson M, Verdun S, et al. Long-term outcomes of primary cystocele repair by transvaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy: extended follow up of the PROSPERE multicentre randomised trial. BJOG. 2022;129(1):127–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16847 .
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16847
pubmed: 34264001
Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Maher C, et al. Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8(8):CD013108.
pubmed: 30121956
Fatton B, de Tayrac R, Letouzey V, Huberlant S. Pelvic organ prolapse and sexual function. Nat Rev Urol. 2020;17:373–90.
doi: 10.1038/s41585-020-0334-8
Fatton B, Hermieu J-F, Lucot J-P, et al. French validation of the pelvic organ prolapse/incontinence sexual questionnaire-IUGA revised (PISQ-IR). Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(12):3183–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04625-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04625-6
pubmed: 33399902
Leruth J, Fillet M, Waltregny D. Incidence and risk factors of postoperative stress urinary incontinence following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in patients with negative preoperative prolapse reduction stress testing. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013;24:485–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1888-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1888-7
Wagner L, Boileau L, Delmas V, et al. Surgical treatment of prolapse using coelioscopic promontofixation: techniques and results. Prog Urol. 2009;19:994–1005.
doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2009.09.026
LeClaire EL, Mukati MS, Juarez D, et al. Is de novo stress incontinence after sacrocolpopexy related to anatomical changes and surgical approach? Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2366-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2366-1
pubmed: 24647867
Salerno J, de Tayrac R, Droupy S, et al. Impact de la promonto-fixation cœlioscopique, avec ou sans bandelette sous-urétrale, sur les symptômes du bas appareil urinaire. Prog Urol. 2016;26:401–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2016.03.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2016.03.003
pubmed: 27068055
Bousserghine Y, Droupy S, Wagner L, et al. Incontinence urinaire d’effort de novo après promontofixation. Prog Urol. 2011;21:631–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2011.04.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2011.04.004
pubmed: 21943660
El Hamamsy D, Fayyad AM. New onset stress urinary incontinence following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and its relation to anatomical outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:1041–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2641-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2641-9
pubmed: 25700842
Holt E. US FDA rules manufacturers to stop selling mesh devices. Lancet. 2019;393:1686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30938-9 .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30938-9
pubmed: 31034366
Department of Error. Lancet. 2019;393:2124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31093-1
Maher CF, Feiner B, Decuyper EM, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:360.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016
Bataller E, Ros C, Anglès S, et al. Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:545–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3702-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3702-7
pubmed: 29987345
Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, et al. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:38.e1–11.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035
To V, Hengrasmee P, Lam A, et al. Evidence to justify retention of transvaginal mesh: comparison between laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and transvaginal Elevate™ mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:1825–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3379-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3379-3
pubmed: 28620794
Wei D, Wang P, Niu X, Zhao X. Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2019;45:915–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13908 .
doi: 10.1111/jog.13908
pubmed: 30652385
pmcid: 6590650
Ehlert MJ, Gupta P, Park J, Sirls LT. Detailed cost analysis of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared to transvaginal mesh repair. Urology. 2016;97:86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.05.072 .
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.05.072
pubmed: 27496298
Myoga M, Sho T, Aoki H, et al. Cost analysis of four types of surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse in a Japanese population. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47:1567–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14683 .
doi: 10.1111/jog.14683
pubmed: 33496049