Anterior intravaginal slingplasty tunneller device for stress incontinence and posterior intravaginal slingplasty for apical vault prolapse: a 2-year prospective multicenter study.

Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA.
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (Impact Factor: 3.97). 08/2007; 197(1):104.e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.056
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to report the outcome for (1) anterior intravaginal slingplasty in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence and (2) posterior intravaginal slingplasty for apical prolapse (> or = stage II).
This was a 2-year prospective multicenter study: patients, 430; anterior intravaginal slingplasty, 144; posterior intravaginal slingplasty, 164; both procedures, 122 (552 tapes total). At 6 and 12 months, the results of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, cough stress test, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitation were assessed. Statistical analyses used paired t-tests.
Of the women in the study, 95% (42 women) had a negative cough stress test result through 12 months (n = 44 women), and 96% (127 women) had a negative cough stress test result at 6 months (n = 132). At 6 months, apical support was optimal in 95.3% (143/150 women) and was satisfactory in 2.7% (4/150 women) and at 12 months, 98.1% (52/53 women), 1.9% (1/53 women). Seventeen of 430 patients (4.0%) had vaginal mesh extrusion. Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores significantly improved (P < .0001).
Anterior intravaginal slingplasty and posterior intravaginal slingplasty are safe and effective when performed with other procedures. For anterior intravaginal slingplasty, the rates of perforation and retention are low, but early extrusions are seen. Patients showed improvements in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, regardless of extrusion.

  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim was to review the safety and efficacy of pelvic organ prolapse surgery for vaginal apical prolapse. Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials (RCT) or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 case reports. The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or "majority evidence‟ from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D "no recommendation possible" would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi. Abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) has a higher success rate than sacrospinous colpopexy with less SUI and postoperative dyspareunia for vault prolapse. ASC had greater morbidity including operating time, inpatient stay, slower return to activities of daily living and higher cost (grade A). ASC has the lowest inpatient costs compared with laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) and robotic sacral colpopexy (RSC). LSC has lower inpatient costs than RSC (grade B).In single RCTs the RSC had longer operating time than both ASC and LSC (grade B). In small trials objective outcomes appear similar although postoperative pain was greater in RSC. LSC is as effective as ASC with reduced blood loss and admission time (grade C). The data relating to operating time are conflicting. ASC performed with polypropylene mesh has superior outcomes to fascia lata (level I), porcine dermis and small intestine submucosa (level 3; grade B). In a single RCT, LSC had a superior objective and subjective success rate and lower reoperation rate compared with polypropylene transvaginal mesh for vault prolapse (grade B).Level 3 evidence suggests that vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension, McCall culdoplasty, iliococcygeus fixation and colpocleisis are relatively safe and effective interventions (grade C). Sacral colpopexy is an effective procedure for vault prolapse and further data are required on the route of performance and efficacy of this surgery for uterine prolapse. Polypropylene mesh is the preferred graft at ASC. Vaginal procedures for vault prolapse are well described and are suitable alternatives for those not suitable for sacral colpopexy.
    International Urogynecology Journal 11/2013; 24(11):1815-33. DOI:10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1 · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traditionally, vaginal hysterectomy and Manchester repair were the surgical approaches to treating uterine prolapse; however, both are associated with a relatively high subsequent vaginal vault recurrence. Laparoscopic uterine suspension is a new way of maintaining uterine support. Many women are keen to keep their uterus for a variety of reasons, including maintaining reproductive capability and the belief that the uterus, cervix, or both, may play a part of their gender identity. Non-removal of the uterus may retain functional (e.g. bowel, bladder and sexual) benefits. Therefore, the concept of uterine preservation for pelvic-organ prolapse has been of interest to pelvic-floor surgeons for many decades. In this review, we provide an overview of the available evidence on treating uterine prolapse surgically. We describe techniques to support the vault during hysterectomy, and examine the evidence for uterine-sparing surgery. Comparative outcomes for vaginal, abdominal and laparoscopic routes will be made.
    Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology 01/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.12.004 · 3.00 Impact Factor