It was reported in a journal article with title: medium-term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polyvinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: a matched control study.The authors presented 2-year anatomical and functional outcomes as well as the occurrence of graft-related complications (grc) in unselected consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (lscp) with polyvinylidene fluoride (pvdf) as compared to a matched cohort operated with hybrid polypropylene containing a resorbable polyglecaprone (pp + pg).This retrospective report deals with the first 105 patients (age: 67 [58-73] years; bmi: 26 [25-29]) in whom lscp was done using a pvdf implant (cases) (pvdf group).They were matched one-to-one to 105 controls (age: 68 [60-75] years; bmi: 25 [23-28]) operated before, using a hybrid pp + pg (ultrapro; ethicon) (pp + pg group).During the procedure, the anterior and posterior leaf were cut out of a large flat mesh.The mesh covering the anterior and posterior vaginal wall had a width of 5 cm, and a length that was based on the length of the vaginal dissection.The posterior leaf was in its sacral arm 3 to 4 cm in width.The mesh was sutured to the vagina with multiple, slowly resorbable polydioxanone sutures (pds; ethicon) in rows of three for each 2 cm of vagina covered.The posterior leaf was suspended tension free and fixed to the anterior vertebral ligament with a minimum of three staplers (ems; ethicon).The anterior leaf was sutured to the posterior mesh using up to three nonresorbable polyester sutures (ethibond; ethicon).Any excess amount of mesh was removed after fixation.Meshes were covered by peritoneum using one or more polyglecaprone 0 sutures (monocryl 0; ethicon).Reported complication in the pvdf group included vaginal wall perforation (n-1) which was closed primarily by laparoscopy, needle detached spontaneously from the suture (n-1) but could be easily retrieved, vascular injury (n-2), postoperative fever (n-1) in which the patient received antibiotics, persistent stress incontinence (n-9) in which patients the underwent reintervention, persistent urge incontinence (n-14), persistent obstructive voiding (n-2), persistent constipation (n-12), persistent obstructive defecation (n-2) in which the patients underwent redo-rectopexies, persistent dyspareunia (n-4), de novo stress incontinence (n-18) in which patients the underwent reintervention, de novo urge incontinence (n-15), de novo obstructive voiding (n-3), de novo constipation (n-15), de novo fecal incontinence (n-4), de novo dyspareunia (n-1), mesh exposure (n-2) which were successfully managed with vaginal excision under general anesthesia, bleeding or vaginal discharge (n-1), pelvic organ prolapse (n-2) in which the patients was reoperated (1 anterior repair and 1 posterior repair), and recurrent or persistent bulge (n-6).Reported complications in pp + pg group included bladder injury (n-1) which was closed primarily by laparoscopy, vaginal wall perforation (n-3) which was closed primarily by laparoscopy, vascular injury (n-1), small bowel obstruction (n-1) in which the patient underwent adhesiolysis, urinary tract infection (n-14) in which the patient received antibiotics, vaginal infection (n-1) in which the patient received antibiotics, postoperative fever (n-3) in which the patient received antibiotics, urinary retention (n-1), persistent stress incontinence (n-9) in which patients the underwent reintervention, persistent urge incontinence (n-18), persistent obstructive voiding (n-7), persistent constipation (n-8), persistent fecal incontinence (n-2), persistent dyspareunia (n-2), de novo stress incontinence (n-15) in which patients the underwent reintervention, de novo urge incontinence (n-11), de novo obstructive voiding (n-3, de novo constipation (n-10), de novo fecal incontinence (n-7), de novo dyspareunia (n-3), mesh exposure (n-1) which were successfully managed with vaginal excision under general anesthesia, bleeding or vaginal discharge (n-1), pelvic organ prolapse (n-1) in which the patient reoperated (combined anterior and posterior repair), coccydynia (n-1) in which the patient insisted removal of the staples on the promontory, which was done successfully yet symptoms persisted, and recurrent or persistent bulge (n-16).In conclusion, a similar patient satisfaction and anatomical outcomes at level-i in patients undergoing lscp with pvdf as compared to matched-controls in whom a pp + pg mesh was used.Furthermore, the overall complication rate was low in both groups, suggesting both meshes can be safely and effectively used for lscp.
|