TY - JOUR
T1 - Morbidity of a Single Incision Transvaginal Mesh to Correct Apical Prolapse
AU - Jeffery, Stephen T.
AU - Kortz, Brita S.
AU - Muavha, Dakalo
AU - Stolwijk, Nina N.
AU - Ras, Lamees
AU - Roovers, Jan-Paul W. R.
N1 - Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/12
Y1 - 2019/12
N2 - Study Objective: To determine complications and related reintervention rates associated with use of the Uphold Vaginal Support System (Boston Scientific, Boston, MA) for symptomatic vaginal apical prolapse. Design: A multicenter retrospective study. Setting: Two teaching hospitals. Patients: Fifty-nine women with symptomatic vaginal apical prolapse. Intervention: Vaginal apical prolapse surgery using the Uphold Mesh Kit system with or without other concomitant procedures. Measurements and Main Results: A chart review was performed, including the following parameters: perioperative and postoperative complications, repeat surgery, and recurrence rate. A total of 59 patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Bladder perforation occurred perioperatively in 1 patient. Postoperative voiding difficulties were observed in 16 patients (27.1%), including 9 women (15.2%) who left the hospital with an indwelling catheter in place. There were 5 cases (8.5%) of transient groin pain, all of which resolved spontaneously. One patient developed a vaginal hematoma. Nine women (15%) required reoperation, including 4 (6.7%) because of recurrent prolapse and 1 (2%) for pelvic pain considered related to the mesh. Three patients (5%) required release of a midurethral sling (MUS) that had been placed concomitantly with the Uphold system. Two patients (3%) required a MUS for de novo stress incontinence. Conclusion: Use of the Uphold Vaginal Support System for symptomatic vaginal apical prolapse was associated with a significant risk of obstructed micturition. In our study population, 15% required repeat surgery, mainly for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse and de novo stress urinary incontinence. No surgical-related complication resulted in long-term morbidity.
AB - Study Objective: To determine complications and related reintervention rates associated with use of the Uphold Vaginal Support System (Boston Scientific, Boston, MA) for symptomatic vaginal apical prolapse. Design: A multicenter retrospective study. Setting: Two teaching hospitals. Patients: Fifty-nine women with symptomatic vaginal apical prolapse. Intervention: Vaginal apical prolapse surgery using the Uphold Mesh Kit system with or without other concomitant procedures. Measurements and Main Results: A chart review was performed, including the following parameters: perioperative and postoperative complications, repeat surgery, and recurrence rate. A total of 59 patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Bladder perforation occurred perioperatively in 1 patient. Postoperative voiding difficulties were observed in 16 patients (27.1%), including 9 women (15.2%) who left the hospital with an indwelling catheter in place. There were 5 cases (8.5%) of transient groin pain, all of which resolved spontaneously. One patient developed a vaginal hematoma. Nine women (15%) required reoperation, including 4 (6.7%) because of recurrent prolapse and 1 (2%) for pelvic pain considered related to the mesh. Three patients (5%) required release of a midurethral sling (MUS) that had been placed concomitantly with the Uphold system. Two patients (3%) required a MUS for de novo stress incontinence. Conclusion: Use of the Uphold Vaginal Support System for symptomatic vaginal apical prolapse was associated with a significant risk of obstructed micturition. In our study population, 15% required repeat surgery, mainly for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse and de novo stress urinary incontinence. No surgical-related complication resulted in long-term morbidity.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85059843995&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30578981
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.12.007
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.12.007
M3 - Article
C2 - 30578981
SN - 1553-4650
VL - 26
SP - 1282
EP - 1287
JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
IS - 7
ER -