A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Fascia Lata and Synthetic Mesh for Sacral Colpopexy
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objective: To compare the objective anatomic outcomes after sacral colpopexy performed with cadaveric fascia lata and polypropylene mesh.
Methods: Patients undergoing a sacral colpopexy were randomized to receive either fascia lata or polypropylene mesh in a double-blinded fashion. Data were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The main outcome measures were pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system stage and individual POP-Q points over time. Objective anatomic failure was defined as POP-Q stage 2 or more at any point during the follow-up period. Proportions of patients with objective anatomic failure at 1 year in each group were compared using the chi(2) test. Mean POP-Q points and stage at 1 year were compared by using the independent samples t test.
Results: One hundred patients were randomized to receive either fascia (n = 46) or mesh (n = 54). Of the 89 patients returning for 1-year follow-up, 91% (41/45) of the mesh group and 68% (30/44) of the fascia group were classified as objectively cured (P = .007). We found significant differences between the mesh and fascia groups with respect to the 1-year postoperative comparisons of points Aa, C, and POP-Q stage. There were no differences between the 2 groups with respect to points TVL (total vaginal length), GH (genital hiatus), PB (perineal body), Ap or Bp (2 points along the posterior vaginal wall).
Conclusions: Polypropylene mesh was superior to fascia lata in terms of POP-Q points, POP-Q stage, and objective anatomic failure rates.
Level Of Evidence: I.
Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy with Autologous Fascia Lata.
Hennes D, Buckley V, Rosamilia A Int Urogynecol J. 2024; .
PMID: 39731627 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-06010-z.
Sacrocolpopexy: Alternatives to Mesh Grafts.
Yong C, Raoofi M, Carey M Int Urogynecol J. 2024; 36(1):3-10.
PMID: 39476292 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-05956-4.
Garcia A, Marquez E, Medina C, Salemi J, Mikhail E, Propst K Int Urogynecol J. 2024; 35(11):2131-2139.
PMID: 39365359 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-05938-6.
Cadiz M, Aguinaldo J Acta Med Philipp. 2024; 58(11):46-53.
PMID: 39006991 PMC: 11239997. DOI: 10.47895/amp.v58i11.8968.
Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.
Maher C, Yeung E, Haya N, Christmann-Schmid C, Mowat A, Chen Z Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023; 7:CD012376.
PMID: 37493538 PMC: 10370901. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2.