Four Month and One Year Results of Transvaginal Mesh Placement (Prolift Procedure) in the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. S45
Author(s):  
N. Ehsani ◽  
H. Van Raalte ◽  
S. Molden ◽  
V. Lucente ◽  
M. Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Transvaginal Mesh ◽  
Mesh Placement ◽  
One Year

scholarly journals Serious complications and recurrences after pelvic organ prolapse surgery for 2309 women in the VIGI-MESH registry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Fritel ◽  
Renaud de Tayrac ◽  
Joe de Keizer ◽  
Sandrine Campagne-Loiseau ◽  
Michel Cosson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Transvaginal Mesh ◽  
Vaginal Repair ◽  
Mesh Placement ◽  
Native Tissue ◽  
Prolapse Recurrence ◽  
Pop Surgery ◽  
Laparoscopic Sacropexy ◽  
One Year

Objective: To assess the incidence of serious complications and reoperations for recurrence after pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery and compare the three most common types of repair. Design: Prospective cohort study using a registry. Setting: 19 surgical centres in France. Population: 2309 women participated between 2017 and 2019. Methods: a multivariate analysis including an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach was used to obtain three comparable groups. Main outcome measures: Serious complications and subsequent reoperations for POP recurrence Results: Mean follow-up was 16.6 months. Surgeries included in the analysis were native tissue vaginal repair (N=504), transvaginal mesh placement (692), and laparoscopic sacropexy with mesh (1113). Serious complications occurred among 52 women (2.3%), and reoperation for recurrence was required for 32 (1.4%). At one year, the cumulative weighted incidence of serious complications was 1.8% for native tissue vaginal repair (95% confidence interval 0-3.9), 3.9% for transvaginal mesh (2.0-5.9), and 2.2% for sacropexy (1.1-2.6). Compared with the native tissue vaginal repair group, the risk of serious complications was higher in the transvaginal mesh group (weighted-HR 3.84, 2.43-6.08), and the sacropexy group (2.48, 1.45-4.23), while the risk of reoperation for prolapse recurrence was reduced in both groups (transvaginal mesh [0.22, 0.13-0.39] and sacropexy [0.29, 0.18-0.47]). Conclusions: Laparoscopic sacropexy with mesh appears to have a better risk profile (few serious complications and few reoperations for recurrence) than transvaginal mesh placement (more serious complications) and native tissue vaginal repair (more reoperations for recurrence). These results are useful for informing women and for shared decision making.

scholarly journals Novel Hybrid Mesh Surgery Combines Sacrocolpopexy with Transvaginal Mesh Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

2011 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 379-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masao Ichikawa ◽  
Shigeo Akira ◽  
Katsuya Mine ◽  
Nozomi Ohuchi ◽  
Nao Iwasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Transvaginal Mesh ◽  
Hybrid Mesh ◽  
Mesh Placement ◽  
Mesh Surgery

scholarly journals The mesh controversy

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 2423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua A. Cohn ◽  
Elizabeth Timbrook Brown ◽  
Casey G. Kowalik ◽  
Melissa R. Kaufman ◽  
Roger R. Dmochowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urinary Incontinence ◽  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Stress Urinary Incontinence ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Transvaginal Mesh ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Mesh Placement ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Uncertain Future

Pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence are common conditions for which approximately 11% of women will undergo surgical intervention in their lifetime. The use of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence rose rapidly in the early 2000s as over 100 mesh products were introduced into the clinical armamentarium with little regulatory oversight for their use. US Food and Drug Administration Public Health Notifications in 2008 and 2011, as well as reclassification of transvaginal mesh for prolapse to class III in early 2016, were a response to debilitating complications associated with transvaginal mesh placement in many women. The midurethral sling has not been subject to the same reclassification and continues to be endorsed as the “gold standard” for surgical management of stress urinary incontinence by subspecialty societies. However, litigators have not differentiated between mesh for prolapse and mesh for incontinence. As such, all mesh, including that placed for stress urinary incontinence, faces continued controversy amidst an uncertain future. In this article, we review the background of the mesh controversy, recent developments, and the anticipated role of mesh in surgery for prolapse and stress urinary incontinence going forward.

scholarly journals The efficacy and complications of using transvaginal mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse in Taiwan: A 10-year review

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-192
Author(s):  
Mou-Jong Sun ◽  
Yu-Li Chuang ◽  
Hui-Hsuan Lau ◽  
Tsia-Shu Lo ◽  
Tsung-Hsien Su
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Transvaginal Mesh

scholarly journals EXPERIENCE OF USING SYNTHETIC PROSTHESES PROLIFT ® (GYNECARE) FOR CORRECTION OF GENITAL PROLAPSE

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 32-37
Author(s):  
S A Levakov ◽  
N S Wanke ◽  
O R Shablovskiy ◽  
A G Kedrova ◽  
V N Shirshov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Vaginal Surgery ◽  
Genital Prolapse ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Prolapse Repair ◽  
Specific Outcome ◽  
One Year

The aim was to evaluated anatomical and symptom specific outcome measures of prolapse repair with PROLIFT ® (Gynecare). In this longitudinal prospective observational study we collected data on a total of 85 women with pelvic organ prolapse stage 2 or more. Objective success rate was 85.9% at 6 months respectively. Patients required a blood more 500 ml - 7,1% and need transfusion. The mesh erosion rate or the displacement of the mesh were 3,5%. Vaginal surgery with prolift mesh® is an effective and safe procedure to correct pelvic organ prolapse over one year follow up.

scholarly journals Long-term outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaojuan Wang ◽  
Yisong Chen ◽  
Changdong Hu ◽  
Keqin Hua
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Transvaginal Mesh ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Mesh Surgery ◽  
Patient Global Impression

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the overall outcomes and complications of transvaginal mesh (TVM) placement for the management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with different meshes with a greater than 10-years of follow-up. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients with POP who underwent prolapse repair surgery with placement of transvaginal mesh (Prolift kit or self-cut Gynemesh) between January 2005 and December 2010. Baseline of patient characteristics were collected from the patients’ medical records. During follow-up, the anatomical outcomes were evaluated using the POP Quantification system, and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) was used to assess the response of a condition to therapy. Overall postoperative satisfaction was assessed by the following question: “What is your overall postoperative satisfaction, on a scale from 0 to 10?”. Relapse-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves. Results In total, 134 patients were included. With a median 12-year (range 10–15) follow-up, 52 patients (38.8%) underwent TVM surgery with Prolift, and Gynemesh was used 82 (61.2%). 91% patients felt that POP symptom improved based on the PGI-I scores, and most satisfied after operation. The recurrence rates of anterior, apical and posterior compartment prolapse were 5.2%, 5.2%, and 2.2%, respectively. No significant differences in POP recurrence, mesh-associated complications and urinary incontinence were noted between TVM surgery with Prolift versus Gynemesh. Conclusions Treatment of POP by TVM surgery exhibited long-term effectiveness with acceptable morbidity. The outcomes of the mesh kit were the same as those for self-cutmesh.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document