Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial

Maher, Christopher; Feiner, Benjamin; DeCuyper, Eva M.; Nichlos, Cathy J.; Hickey, Kacey V.; O’Rourke, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016

Cited by 232 publications

(174 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

159

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since December 2010, six randomized studies have been published [23][24][25][26][27][28]: two studies comparing the anatomical outcomes after 12 months between conventional vaginal prolapse surgery and polypropylene mesh insertion (respectively, n=189 versus n=200 and n=97 versus n=93) [23,28], one study comparing the improvement of symptoms and quality of life 2 years after a 2×2 factorial design first described by Allahdin (Vicryl mesh n=32 or not n=34 and PDS n=33 or Vicryl suture n=33) [8,25], one study comparing the anatomical outcomes after 36 months between sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF, n=8) and posterior intravaginal slingplasty (IVS, n=14) for uterovaginal or vaginal vault prolapse [24], one study comparing the anatomical outcomes after 24 months between laparoscopic sacropexy (n=53) and vaginal mesh (Prolift Kit, n= 55) for the treatment of post hysterectomy vault prolapse [26], and one study comparing the sexual function at 12 months after either a vaginal surgical repair with native tissue or a trocar-guided mesh insertion in patients with recurrent POP [27]. The work of Madhuvrata was also dismissed because of the lack of precision about the conception, the description of surgery and the complication rates for different groups (no mesh versus mesh).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a literature review

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair through the vaginal route has increased during this last decade. The objective is to improve anatomical results (sacropexy with mesh seeming better than traditional surgery) and keep still the advantage of vaginal route. Numbers of cohort series and randomized control trials have been recently published. These works increase our knowledge of advantages and risks of mesh. It has been shown that the use of mesh to treat cystocoele through vaginal route improves anatomical results when compared to traditional surgery. The rate of complications, especially de novo dyspareunia, remains equivalent between the two techniques.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a literature review

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy took longer (difference: + 52 min [95 % CI: 41.5-62.6]), patients were discharged earlier from hospital and were able to resume day-to-day activities more quickly. After two years, recurrence across all compartments was significantly more common in the vaginal mesh group (57 vs. 23 %) [113], as was the rate of re-operations (22 vs. 5%, p = 0.006).…”

Section: Abdominal Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Sacrocolpopexymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In 23 studies, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy had an equally high cumulative success rate of 91 % (number of failures: 215/2341). In a randomized study, Maher et al compared laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy including anterior and posterior polypropylene mesh extension with the vaginal Prolift ® mesh kit which has since been withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer (Ethicon ® ) and is no longer available [113]. While laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy took longer (difference: + 52 min [95 % CI: 41.5-62.6]), patients were discharged earlier from hospital and were able to resume day-to-day activities more quickly.…”

Section: Abdominal Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Sacrocolpopexymentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016)

Baeßler

Aigmüller

Albrich

et al. 2016

Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ziel: Erstellung einer offiziellen, internationalen, interdisziplinären Leitlinie, publiziert und koordiniert von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG). Die Leitlinie wurde für den deutschsprachigen Raum entwickelt und wird neben der DGGG auch von der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (SGGG) und der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (OEGGG) mitgetragen. Das Ziel dieser Leitlinie, die von der DGGG publiziert und koordiniert wurde, ist es, durch die Evaluation der relevanten Literatur einen evidenzbasierten Überblick über die Diagnostik sowie konservative und operative Therapie des Descensus genitalis der Frau mit oder ohne Belastungsinkontinenz zu geben. Methoden: Es erfolgte ein systematischer Review sowie Synthese von Daten, anteilig mit Metaanalyse (S2e). Es wurde eine umfassende Literatursuche in MEDLINE, Embase, Cinahl, Pedro und im Cochrane-Register, in Referenzlisten und in den Abstracts der Annual Meetings der International Continence Society und der International Urogynecological Association durchgeführt. Abstracts wurden eingeschlossen, wenn es sich um randomisierte Studien handelte, die als Podiumpräsentation vorgestellt und diskutiert wurden. Es wurden Originalarbeiten seit 2008 eingeschlossen, deren Nachkontrollzeitraum bei mindestens 12 Monaten lag. Für die Beschreibung von perioperativen Komplikationen wurden jegliche Daten herangezogen. Empfehlungen: Es werden Empfehlungen zur Diagnostik, konservativen und operativen Therapie des Genitaldeszensus gegeben, wobei die 3 urogynäkologischen Kompartimente, Prävention oder Behandlung von Belastungsinkontinenz, Vor-und Nachteile von Netzaugmentationen sowie uteruserhaltende Optionen, berücksichtigt

show abstract

“…Only two studies comparing SC with other procedures have been added to the Cochrane review over the past decade and both of these are controversial. One is a trial comparing LSC with total vaginal mesh (TVM) that showed superiority of LSC compared to TVM [14]. The study is controversial because the reported success rate for TVM was significantly lower than the rate achieved by other authors and because of this low rate, LSC was reported as superior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Systematic reviews of apical prolapse surgery: are we being misled down a dangerous path?

Moen¹,

Gebhart

Tamussino

2015

Int Urogynecol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BI was told I had the best procedure for my condition. Is it true I could have had vaginal surgery without mesh?^This question was posed by the 43-year-old woman now facing the need for adhesiolysis and trachelectomy due to pelvic pain and cyclic bleeding two years after undergoing laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy and mesh sacrocervicopexy for stage 3 uterine prolapse (Fig. 1).The claim of superiority of sacrocolpopexy (SC) over other pelvic organ prolapse (POP) procedures was initiated by the results of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a total of 287 patients comparing abdominal SC (ASC) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) published in 1996, 1998 and 2004 [1-3]. These studies reported superior anatomic outcomes with ASC when compared with SSLF, but also showed higher short-term morbidity with ASC. The claim of superiority of ASC over SSLF was further reinforced with the publication of the first Cochrane systematic review of surgery for POP published in 2004, which summarized the findings of the three previously mentioned studies stating Babdominal sacral colpopexy was better than vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy in terms of a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse and less dyspareunia, but the trend towards a lower reoperation rate for prolapse following abdominal sacrocolpopexy was not statistically significant^ [4]. Since these initial RCTs comparing ASC with SSLF, several systematic reviews have shown the same findings of superior anatomic outcomes associated with ASC compared with SSLF [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. These reviews reinforce the perception that there is a large body of evidence supporting ASC as the best option for treating POP.Laparoscopic SC (LSC) and robot-assisted SC have been developed to reduce the short-term morbidity associated with ASC [12,13]. Many surgeons consider these less invasive approaches to SC (and variations such as sacrocervicopexy) equivalent to ASC in terms of anatomic outcome leading them to claim that LSC and robotic SC approaches are now the best options for treating POP. The most recent Cochrane review published in 2013 concludes Bsacral colpopexy has superior outcomes to a variety of vaginal procedures including sacrospinous colpopexy, uterosacral colpopexy and transvaginal mesh^implying that all forms of SC are superior to all other surgical options for treating apical prolapse [9].A close look at the current literature, however, reveals that there are actually very few level 1 studies from which to derive such a bold conclusion concerning SC compared with other options for treating POP. Only two studies comparing SC with other procedures have been added to the Cochrane review over the past decade and both of these are controversial. One is a trial comparing LSC with total vaginal mesh (TVM) that showed superiority of LSC compared to TVM [14]. The study is controversial because the reported success rate for TVM was significantly lower than the rate achieved by other authors and because of this low rate, LSC was reported as superior. The...

show abstract

Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial

Cited by 232 publications

References 18 publications

Use of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a literature review

Use of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a literature review

Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016)

Systematic reviews of apical prolapse surgery: are we being misled down a dangerous path?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About