Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the value of posterior compartment surgery during concomitant mesh-augmented apical suspension by comparing obstructed defecatory symptoms after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with LSC with posterior repair (LSC + PR) and laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy (LSCP) procedures., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent LSC, LSC + PR, and LSCP between July 2007 and July 2016 at a tertiary referral center in Indianapolis, Ind. Our primary outcome was differential change in Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) and Colorectal-Anal Impact Questionnaire (CRAIQ-7) scores between the groups including patient-specific symptoms of splinting, straining, incomplete emptying, and pain with defecation. Our secondary outcomes were the rates of postoperative persistent, new, and resolved obstructed defecation symptoms. Anatomic outcomes were also compared between the groups as measured by change in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System points Ap, GH, and PB., Results: A total of 312 women were included in the study (47 LSC, 133 LSC + PR, and 132 LSCP), with a median follow-up time of 366 days. The majority of patients who underwent surgery had stage III pelvic organ prolapse (61%). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, including preoperative CRADI-8 and CRAIQ-7 scores. All surgical groups demonstrated improvement in CRADI-8 and CRAIQ-7 scores postoperatively (P < 0.001). However, despite differential change in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System points Ap, GH, and PB, there was no change in CRADI-8 and CRAIQ-7 scores or rates of persistent, new, and resolved symptoms of splinting to defecate, incomplete emptying, and pain with defecation between the groups. The only factor that seemed to be differentially improved by the addition of a posterior compartment repair was postoperative straining. There was a greater rate of de novo straining in the LSC group compared with LSCP (P = 0.01) (LSC + PR v LSCP, P = NS, for both)., Conclusions: We cannot recommend posterior compartment surgery as providing any patient-centered benefit beyond improved cosmesis because the addition of perineal body stabilization either before (LSCP) or posterior repair after (LSC + PR) concomitant mesh-augmented apical suspension did not differentially affect bowel symptoms compared with LSC alone.

Objective: The purpose of our study was to determine whether the anatomic threshold for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) diagnosis and surgical success remains valid when the patient sees what we see on exam., Methods: Two hundred participants were assigned, by computer-generated block randomization, to see one of four videos. Each video contained the same six clips representative of various degrees of anterior vaginal wall support. Participants were asked questions immediately after each clip. They were asked: "In your opinion, does this patient have a bulge or something falling out that she can see or feel in the vaginal area?" Similarly, they were asked to give their opinion on surgical outcome on a 4-point Likert scale., Results: The proportion of participants who identified the presence of a vaginal bulge increased substantially at the level of early stage 2 prolapse (1 cm above the hymen), with 67 % answering yes to the question regarding bulge. The proportion of participants who felt that surgical outcome was less desirable also increased substantially at early stage 2 prolapse (1 cm above the hymen), with 52 % describing that outcome as "not at all" or "somewhat" successful., Conclusion: Early stage 2 POP (1 cm above the hymen) is the anatomic threshold at which women identify both a vaginal bulge and a less desirable surgical outcome when they see what we see on examination.

Posterior vaginal wall prolapse is one of the most common prolapses encountered by gynecological surgeons. What appears to be a straightforward condition to diagnose and treat surgically for physicians has proven to be frustratingly unpredictable with regard to symptom relief for patients. Functional disorders such as dyssynergic defecation and constipation are often attributed to posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Little scientific evidence supports this assumption, emphasizing that structure and function are not synonymous when treating posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Rectoceles, enteroceles, sigmoidoceles, peritoneoceles, rectal and intraanal intussusception, rectal prolapse, and descending perineal syndrome are all conditions that have an impact on the posterior vaginal wall. All too often these different anatomic conditions are treated with the same surgical approach, addressing a posterior vaginal wall bulge with a traditional posterior colporrhaphy. Studies that examine the correlation between stage of posterior wall prolapse and patient symptoms have failed to reliably do so. Surgical outcomes measured by prolapse staging appear successful, yet patient expectations are often not met. As increasing attention is being placed on patient satisfaction outcomes concerning surgical treatments, this fact will need to be addressed. Surgeons will have to clearly communicate what can and what cannot be expected with surgical repair of posterior vaginal wall prolapse., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To identify patient-reported reasons for selecting obliterative surgery for the purpose of predicting decision regret and satisfaction., Methods: We created a deidentified database of patients who underwent an obliterative procedure for prolapse from 2006 to 2013. Patients were excluded if they declined study participation, were deceased, or had dementia. Participants completed a survey regarding reasons for selecting obliterative surgery and a modified version of validated questionnaires on decision regret (Decision Regret Scale-Pelvic Floor Disorder) and satisfaction (Satisfaction with Decision Scale-Pelvic Floor Disorder). Parsimonious multivariate linear regression models were constructed to determine if any of the reasons given for choosing obliterative surgery were independent predictors of decision regret and satisfaction after controlling for significant sociodemographic, clinical, and surgical outcome data identified by bivariate analysis., Results: Seventy-seven women completed the surveys. "To follow my doctor's recommendations" and "no longer sexually active," and/or "did not plan to be" as reasons for selecting obliterative surgery made the most difference; however, these reasons were not identified as independent predictors of decision regret or satisfaction after controlling for confounders. The regret linear regression models identified preoperative sexual activity rather than the patient-reported reason "no longer sexually active and/or did not plan to be," as the only independent predictor of more decision regret after obliterative surgery (B coefficient 1.68, P < 0.01). The satisfaction linear regression models identified reoperation for any reason as an independent predictor of lower satisfaction (β, -0.24; P = 0.04) and the patient-reported reason for choosing obliterative surgery "not interested in pessary" as a predictor of higher satisfaction (β, 0.30, P = 0.01)., Conclusions: This study advances our knowledge about the obliterative surgical decision making process. Behavioral and educational interventions directed at improving patient and physician communications concerning the dynamics of sexual health issues in an aging population will likely decrease regret when obliterative surgery is chosen. Minimizing reoperation after obliterative surgery through increased experience, knowledge, and improved surgical skills and patient validation when pessary is declined will likely improve satisfaction when obliterative surgery is chosen.

Objectives: Obesity can predispose women to pelvic organ prolapse and can also affect the success of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative anatomical outcomes following sacral colpopexy (SC) and transvaginal mesh colpopexy in a group of obese women with pelvic organ prolapse., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of obese women who underwent SC (n = 56) or transvaginal mesh colpopexy (n = 35). Follow-up ranged from 6 to 12 months. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative variables were compared using Student t, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher exact tests, and by analysis of covariance., Results: The women in the SC group had significantly higher mean apical vaginal measurements (P < 0.05), and significantly fewer stage II recurrences than women in the transvaginal mesh colpopexy group. There were no significant differences between the groups for other postoperative outcomes, including mesh erosion, recurrent prolapse symptoms, dyspareunia, and surgical satisfaction (P > 0.05)., Conclusion: In these 91 obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse, SC resulted in better anatomical outcomes than transvaginal mesh colpopexy. However, the two procedures had similar outcomes with regard to recurrent symptoms and surgical satisfaction.

Both expert surgeons agree with the following: (1) Surgical mesh, whether placed laparoscopically or transvaginally, is indicated for pelvic floor reconstruction in cases involving recurrent advanced pelvic organ prolapse. (2) Procedural expertise and experience gained from performing a high volume of cases is fundamentally necessary. Knowledge of outcomes and complications from an individual surgeon's audit of cases is also needed when discussing the risks and benefits of procedures and alternatives. Yet controversy still exists on how best to teach new surgical techniques and optimal ways to efficiently track outcomes, including subjective and objective cure of prolapse as well as perioperative complications. A mesh registry will be useful in providing data needed for surgeons. Cost factors are also a consideration since laparoscopic and especially robotic surgical mesh procedures are generally more costly than transvaginal mesh kits when operative time, extra instrumentation and length of stay are included. Long-term outcomes, particularly for transvaginal mesh procedures, are lacking. In conclusion, all surgery poses risks; however, patients should be made aware of the pros and cons of various routes of surgery as well as the potential risks and benefits of using mesh. Surgeons should provide patients with honest information about their own experience implanting mesh and also their experience dealing with mesh-related complications.

Introduction and Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to determine the reoperation rate for sling placement or revision in patients who had primary continence procedures based on prolapse reduction stress testing (RST) prior to laparoscopic sacral colpoperineopexy (LSCP)., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of women who had RST prior to LSCP for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Patients with positive test (Pos RST) had a concomitant midurethral sling procedure and those with negative test (Neg RST) did not. Variables were compared with either Student's t test or Fisher's exact test., Results: In Neg RST group (n = 70), the rate of surgery for de novo urodynamic stress incontinence was 18.6%. In Pos RST group (n = 82), the rate of sling revision for bladder outlet obstruction was 7.3%. Overall, 88% of patients did not require a second surgery., Conclusions: The use of RST to recommend concomitant continence procedures during LSCP results in a single surgery for the majority of our patients.

Objective: Obesity can predispose women to pelvic organ prolapse and can also affect the success of prolapse surgery. Sacral colpopexy is a common surgical approach used to treat significant prolapse, and may be performed by laparotomy or laparoscopy. The objective of this study was to determine whether surgical outcomes following abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) varied according to BMI., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women who had undergone ASC (n = 90) and LSC (n = 150). Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative information was collected from patient charts and entered into a database according to BMI category (normal weight 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m², overweight = 25 to 29.9 kg/m², obese ≥ 30 kg/m²). Within each BMI group, outcomes were compared between ASC and LSC patients using Student t, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher exact tests, and analyses of covariance., Results: In normal weight patients, postoperative apical measurements were worse in ASC patients (P = 0.01). In overweight patients, the ASC group had worse posterior measurements (P = 0.05) and fewer mesh/suture erosions (P = 0.03) but more recurrent prolapse symptoms (P = 0.007). In obese patients, the ASC group had better anterior measurements (P = 0.008). There were no differences in any BMI category for prolapse stage, surgical satisfaction, or classification of surgical success or failure (P > 0.05)., Conclusion: Differences between ASC and LSC were identified when patients were categorized according to BMI. These findings may be useful in counselling patients and planning the appropriate surgical approach for sacral colpopexy based on BMI.

Objective: The primary objective was to estimate the incidence of de novo stress urinary incontinence after total vaginal mesh procedures in women with negative preoperative urodynamics with prolapse reduction. Secondary objective was to identify associated risk factors., Study Design: A retrospective cohort study with a nested case-control study of women who underwent total vaginal mesh procedures without midurethral sling after a negative preoperative urodynamics., Result: Sixty patients were included in the final analysis. Fifteen (25%) patients were diagnosed with de novo stress urinary incontinence. Although no significant associated risk factors were identified, there was a trend for higher gravidity and better anterior wall support among women who had stress urinary incontinence develop., Conclusion: The incidence of de novo stress urinary incontinence after total vaginal mesh procedures in this cohort was 25%. Patients should be appropriately counseled regarding the same., (Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Hypothesis: Laparoscopic sacral colpoperineopexy (LSCP) involves posterior graft extension to the perineum for improved posterior support. The objective of this study was to determine whether posterior measurements differed between those that had graft extension done abdominally (A-LSCP) or abdomino-vaginally (AV-LSCP)., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients that underwent A-LSCP (n = 17) and AV-LSCP (n = 51). Pre-, peri-, and postoperative variables were compared using Student's t, Fisher's exact, and analysis of covariance tests., Results: Follow-up was 6 to 12 months. There were no differences between A-LSCP and AV-LSCP for any vaginal measurements or stage of prolapse (P > 0.05). Although not statistically different, A-LSCP patients had lower rates of mesh erosion and dyspareunia (P > 0.05). AV-LSCP patients had fewer prolapse symptoms (P = 0.01), but both groups had similar surgical satisfaction (P= 0.8)., Conclusions: A-LSCP and AV-LSCP had comparable effects on posterior vaginal measurements; however, mesh erosion and subjective outcomes differed between the two approaches.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare pre- and postoperative pelvic organ prolapse-quantification (POP-Q) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements in patients who undergo total Prolift (Ethicon, Inc, Somerville, NJ) colpopexy., Study Design: Pre- and postoperative MRI and POP-Q examinations were performed on patients with stage 2 or greater prolapse who underwent the Prolift procedure. MRI measurements were taken at maximum descent. Correlations between changes in MRI and POP-Q measurements were determined., Results: Ten subjects were enrolled. On MRI, statistically significant changes were seen with cystocele, enterocele, and apex. Statistically significant changes were seen on POP-Q measurements for Aa, Ba, C, Ap, Bp, and GH. Positive correlations were demonstrated between POP-Q and MRI changes. Minimal tissue reaction was seen on MRI., Conclusion: The Prolift system is effective in the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse as measured by POP-Q and MRI. Postoperative MRIs support the inert nature of polypropylene mesh., (Copyright © 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of concomitant hysterectomy at the time of abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy on the risk of mesh erosion with the use of type 1 polypropylene mesh., Study Design: This was a retrospective case control study. All cases of vaginal mesh erosion (n = 31) were compared with matched control cases (n = 93) in a 3:1 ratio. Demographic data, concomitant procedures, and postoperative complications were compared between groups with the use of 2-sample Student t test and Pearson chi(2) test., Results: The odds ratio of a vaginal mesh erosion was no different for those who underwent a hysterectomy at the time of abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-2.18; P = .899) when potential confounders were similar between groups., Conclusion: Hysterectomy at the time of abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy is not a risk factor for vaginal mesh erosion with the use of type 1 polypropylene mesh.

Abdominal correction of pelvic organ prolapse remains a viable option for patients and surgeons. The transition from open procedures to less invasive laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries is evident in the literature. This article reviews the surgical options available for pelvic organ prolapse repair and their reported outcomes. Procedures reviewed include apical support (sacral, uterosacral, and others), and abdominal anterior and posterior vaginal wall support. Long-term follow-up and appropriately designed studies will further help direct surgeons in deciding which approach to incorporate into their practice.