Mesh Exposure Following Vaginal Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy at the Time of Sacrocolpopexy

Overview

Journal Int Urogynecol J

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Urology

Date 2022 Feb 14

PMID 35157096

Authors

Katherine L Woodburn

Amr Sherif El Haraki

Andrew I Sokol

Robert E Gutman

Catherine A Matthews

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction And Hypothesis: To compare vaginal mesh exposure rates, adverse events and composite failure within 1 year postoperatively in patients who undergo vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal mesh attachment (TVH) versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with abdominal mesh attachment (TLH) for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.

Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study is a secondary analysis of data collected retrospectively at one institution and the multicenter randomized control PACT trial. Women were excluded for no follow-up between 9 months and 2 years postoperatively or undergoing concurrent non-urogynecologic procedures.

Results: Between 2010 and 2019, 182 patients underwent TLH and 132 TVH. There were 15 (4.8%) vaginal mesh exposures: 12 (6.6%) in the TLH and 3 (2.3%) in the TVH group (p = 0.133) with zero mesh erosions. Logistic regression analysis for mesh exposure in the TLH vs. TVH groups controlling for BMI, posterior repair and surgeon training also showed no significant difference (OR 4.8, 95% CI 0.94, 24.8, p = 0.059). The overall intraoperative complication rate was low (19/314, 6.1%) with a higher rate of bladder injury in the TLH group (4.4% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.049). The TLH group had a higher rate of UTI (8.2% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.027) and clean intermittent catheterization (11% vs. 3%, p = 0.009). At 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in composite failure (6%), bulge symptoms (5%) or retreatment (1%) between groups.

Conclusions: At 1 year, there is no significant difference in vaginal mesh exposure rates between vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal mesh attachment and laparoscopic hysterectomy with abdominal mesh attachment. Both groups have equal efficacy with low rates of complications.

Citing Articles

Intrafascial Colpotomy, Edge-to-Edge Closure, and Peritoneal Graft Technique for Minimizing Mesh Erosion in Concurrent Robotic Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy.

Yagur Y, Kalantan A, Bukhari M, Donohoe O, Almoqren M, Robertson J Int Urogynecol J. 2024; .

PMID: 39636467 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-06012-x.

References

Wu J, Matthews C, Conover M, Pate V, Funk M . Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123(6):1201-1206. PMC: 4174312. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286. View

Smith F, Holman C, Moorin R, Tsokos N . Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116(5):1096-100. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729. View

Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski H, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M . Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013; 309(19):2016-24. PMC: 3747840. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919. View

Klauschie J, Cornella J . Surgical treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: a historic summary and review of outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18(1):10-7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3182404189. View

Paraiso M, Walters M, Rackley R, Melek S, Hugney C . Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192(5):1752-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.051. View

Wang L, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Hu J, Laudano M, Davison W, Schulster M . Trends in Mesh Use for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair From the Medicare Database. Urology. 2015; 86(5):885-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.022. View

Winkelman W, Modest A, Richardson M . The Surgical Approach to Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy and Concurrent Hysterectomy: Trends for the Past Decade. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020; 27(1):e196-e201. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000891. View

Matthews C, Geller E, Henley B, Kenton K, Myers E, Dieter A . Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture for Vaginal Mesh Fixation During Total Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 136(2):355-364. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003884. View

Tan-Kim J, Menefee S, Luber K, Nager C, Lukacz E . Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 22(2):205-12. PMC: 3025104. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1265-3. View

10.

Warner W, Vora S, Hurtado E, Welgoss J, Horbach N, von Pechmann W . Effect of operative technique on mesh exposure in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18(2):113-7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318249bd54. View

11.

Akyol A, Akca A, Ulker V, Gedikbasi A, Kublay A, Han A . Additional surgical risk factors and patient characteristics for mesh erosion after abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014; 40(5):1368-74. DOI: 10.1111/jog.12363. View

12.

Bensinger G, Lind L, Lesser M, Guess M, Winkler H . Abdominal sacral suspensions: analysis of complications using permanent mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193(6):2094-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.066. View

13.

Osmundsen B, Clark A, Goldsmith C, Adams K, Denman M, Edwards R . Mesh erosion in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18(2):86-8. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318246806d. View

14.

Nosti P, Carter C, Sokol A, Tefera E, Iglesia C, Park A . Transvaginal Versus Transabdominal Placement of Synthetic Mesh at Time of Sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015; 22(3):151-5. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000222. View

15.

Davidson E, Thomas T, Lampert E, Paraiso M, Ferrando C . Route of hysterectomy during minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy does not affect postoperative outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2018; 30(4):649-655. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3790-4. View

16.

Jones K, Thompson N, Imamoglu G, Solomon E, Rastegar V, Harmanli O . Short-Term Outcomes of Vaginal Hysterectomy at the Time of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020; 27(1):e223-e226. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000898. View

17.

Clavien P, Barkun J, De Oliveira M, Vauthey J, Dindo D, Schulick R . The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009; 250(2):187-96. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2. View