Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use

Show full item record



Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/325907

Citation

Falconer , C , Altman , D , Poutakidis , G , Rahkola-Soisalo , P , Mikkola , T & Morcos , E 2021 , ' Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use ' , Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics , vol. 303 , no. 1 , pp. 135-142 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05764-3

Title: Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use
Author: Falconer, Christian; Altman, Daniel; Poutakidis, Georgios; Rahkola-Soisalo, Päivi; Mikkola, Tomi; Morcos, Edward
Contributor: University of Helsinki, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
University of Helsinki, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Date: 2021-01
Language: eng
Number of pages: 8
Belongs to series: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 0932-0067
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/325907
Abstract: Purpose The aim of this study was to compare long-term effects of high-volume surgery at a single-center to multicenter use when using a mesh-capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair. Methods Five years after surgery 101 (88%) at the single center were compared with 164 (81.2%) in the multicenter trial. Outcome measurements included clinical examination, prolapse-specific symptom questionnaires [Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)] and pain estimation by VAS (0-10). Results Optimal apical segment outcome was 95% in the single- compared to 83.3% in the multicenter study (p <0.001). POP recurrence in the anterior and posterior walls (POP-Q, Ba and Bp >= 0) was more common at the multicenter as compared to the single center [(19.8% vs 5.4%) and (26% vs 2.7%), (p <0.001)]. Reoperations for POP and mesh-related complications were more frequent in the multicenter study [31/202 (15.3%) vs 7/116 (6.1%),p <0.001]. Total PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 scores were comparable between the cohorts. There were no significant differences in overall pain scores in-between the cohorts during follow-up. At the single center, 1/81 patients (1.2%) had VAS 7/10, i.e. severe pain, as compared to 3/131 (2.3%) in the multicenter study (p = 0.277). Conclusions Despite the high objective and subjective long-term effectiveness of the procedure in both regular use, and at a high-volume center, centralizing the use of a standardized capturing-device guided transvaginal mesh for POP repair reduced secondary interventions by more than half.
Subject: 3123 Gynaecology and paediatrics
Pelvic organ prolapse
Transvaginal mesh
Surgical volume
Safety
Effectiveness
QUALITY-OF-LIFE
TRANSVAGINAL MESH
RISK-FACTORS
VOLUME
CENTRALIZATION
SURGERY
WOMEN
Rights:


Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
Falconer2021_Ar ... mOutcomesOfPelvicOrgan.pdf 455.2Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record