PDF herunterladen
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2016; 38(07): 356-364
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1585074
Review Article
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Mesh Surgery for Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse: A Meta-analysis

Cirurgia com tela para correção de prolapso de parede anterior: metanálise
Cássia Raquel Teatin Juliato
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
,
Luiz Carlos do Santos Júnior
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
,
Jorge Milhem Haddad
2   Department of Urogynecology, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Rodrigo Aquino Castro
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Marcelo Lima
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
,
Edilson Benedito de Castro
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

01. Februar 2016

18. Mai 2016

Publikationsdatum:
29. Juli 2016 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major health issue worldwide, affecting 6–8% of women. The most affected site is the anterior vaginal wall. Multiple procedures and surgical techniques have been used, with or without the use of vaginal meshes, due to common treatment failure, reoperations, and complication rates in some studies.

Methods Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis regarding the use of vaginal mesh in anterior vaginal wall prolapse was performed. A total of 115 papers were retrieved after using the medical subject headings (MESH) terms: ‘anterior pelvic organ prolapse OR cystocele AND surgery AND (mesh or colporrhaphy)’ in the PubMed database. Exclusion criteria were: follow-up shorter than 1 year, use of biological or absorbable meshes, and inclusion of other vaginal wall prolapses. Studies were put in a data chart by two independent editors; results found in at least two studies were grouped for analysis.

Results After the review of the titles by two independent editors, 70 studies were discarded, and after abstract assessment, 18 trials were eligible for full text screening. For final screening and meta-analysis, after applying the Jadad score (> 2), 12 studies were included. Objective cure was greater in the mesh surgery group (odds ratio [OR] = 1,28 [1,07–1,53]), which also had greater blood loss (mean deviation [MD] = 45,98 [9,72–82,25]), longer surgery time (MD = 15,08 [0,48–29,67]), but less prolapse recurrence (OR = 0,22 [01,3–0,38]). Dyspareunia, symptom resolution and reoperation rates were not statistically different between groups. Quality of life (QOL) assessment through the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12), the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20), the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the perceived quality of life scale (PQOL) was not significantly different.

Conclusions Anterior vaginal prolapse mesh surgery has greater anatomic cure rates and less recurrence, although there were no differences regarding subjective cure, reoperation rates and quality of life. Furthermore, mesh surgery was associated with longer surgical time and greater blood loss. Mesh use should be individualized, considering prior history and risk factors for recurrence.

Resumo

Introdução Prolapso de órgãos pélvicos é problema de saúde públicas, sendo o mais comum o anterior. Para tratamento são utilizadas cirurgias, com ou sem telas. O uso de telas é para diminuir recidivas, mas não h á consenso.

Métodos Foi realizada revisão da literatura e metanálise, sobre uso de telas na correção do prolapso anterior. Base de dados foi PUBMED , com termos (MESH): “Anterior Pelvic Organ OR Cystocele AND Surgery AND (Mesh or Colporrhaphy)”. Critérios de exclusão foram: seguimento menor que 1 ano, telas biológicas ou absorvíveis. Resultados: foram avaliados 115 artigos. Após revisão dos títulos, 70 estudos foram descartados e 18 após leitura de resumos. Após critérios de Jadad (>2), 12 estudos foram incluídos. Análise estatística foi razão de risco ou diferença entre médias dos grupos, e as análises com grande heterogeneidade foram avaliadas através de análise de efeito aleatório.

Resultados Cura objetiva foi superior no grupo com tela - OR 1,28 (1,07-1,53, p ≤ 0,00001), maior perda sanguínea - diferença média (MD) 45,98 (9,72-82,25, p = 0,01), tempo cirúrgico mais longo - MD 15,08 (0,48-29,67, p = 0,04), porém menor recorrência - OR 0,22 (0,13-0,38, p = 0,00001), não apresentando maior resolução dos sintomas - OR 1,93 (0,83-4,51, p = 0,15). Dispareunia e taxa de reoperação também não foram diferentes entre grupos. Qualidade de vida não apresentou diferença.

Conclusões Cirurgia com tela para prolapso vaginal anterior apresenta melhor taxa de cura anatômica e menor recorrência, sem diferenças cura subjetiva, reoperação e qualidade de vida. Há maior tempo cirúrgico e perda sanguínea. Uso de telas deve ser individualizado.

Keywords

anterior pelvic organ prolapse - cystocele - surgery - mesh - colporrhaphy - meta-analysis

Palavras-chave

prolapso pélvico de parede anterior - cistocele - cirurgia - tela - colporrafia - metanálise
 

  • References

  • 1 Maher C. Anterior vaginal compartment surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2013; 24 (11) 1791-1802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brincat CA, Larson KA, Fenner DE. Anterior vaginal wall prolapse: assessment and treatment. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2010; 53 (1) 51-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lensen EJ, Withagen MI, Kluivers KB, Milani AL, Vierhout ME. Surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a historical review with emphasis on the anterior compartment. Int Urogynecol J 2013; 24 (10) 1593-1602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Giarenis I, Robinson D. Prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse. F1000Prime Rep 2014; 6: 77
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 4 (4) CD004014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J , et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) e1-e34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K , et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175 (1) 10-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D , et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17 (1) 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rogers RG, Coates KW, Kammerer-Doak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C. A short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2003; 14 (3) 164-168 , discussion 168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (1) 103-113
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S. P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2005; 16 (3) 176-181 , discussion 181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cochrane's Informatics & Knowledge Management Department (IKMD). Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Hulley SB, Cummings ST, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. [Designing clinical research]. 4th ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed; 2015. . Portuguese.
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C ; Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 2011; 364 (19) 1826-1836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 de Tayrac R, Cornille A, Eglin G , et al. Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT. Int Urogynecol J 2013; 24 (10) 1651-1661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Delroy CA, Castro RdeA, Dias MM , et al. The use of transvaginal synthetic mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 2013; 24 (11) 1899-1907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 El-Nazer MA, Gomaa IA, Ismail Madkour WA, Swidan KH, El-Etriby MA. Anterior colporrhaphy versus repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a comparative clinical study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 286 (4) 965-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gutman RE, Nosti PA, Sokol AI , et al. Three-year outcomes of vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (4) 770-777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T , et al. Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110 (2 Pt 2) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lamblin G, Van-Nieuwenhuyse A, Chabert P, Lebail-Carval K, Moret S, Mellier G. A randomized controlled trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J 2014; 25 (7) 961-970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (4) 891-898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T , et al. Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3.  year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (3) 235.e1-235.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I. A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19 (4) 467-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tamanini JTN, Tamanini MMM, Castro RCO , et al. Treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse with and without polypropylene mesh: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial - Part I. Int Braz J Urol 2013; 39 (4) 519-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH. Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG 2011; 118 (12) 1518-1527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Weber AM, Abrams P, Brubaker L , et al. The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2001; 12 (3) 178-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Barber MD. Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2005; 48 (3) 648-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chmielewski L, Walters MD, Weber AM, Barber MD. Reanalysis of a randomized trial of 3 techniques of anterior colporrhaphy using clinically relevant definitions of success. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (1) 69.e1-69.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89 (4) 501-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19 (3) 437-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R. Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189 (5) 1261-1267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 (5) 1533-1538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (FDA). Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) [Internet]. Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. Jul 2011 [cited 2015 May 10]. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/UCM262760.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Cheon C, Maher C. Economics of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2013; 24 (11) 1873-1876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jacklin P, Duckett J. A decision-analytic Markov model to compare the cost-utility of anterior repair augmented with synthetic mesh compared with non-mesh repair in women with surgically treated prolapse. BJOG 2013; 120 (2) 217-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Elliott CS, Yeh J, Comiter CV, Chen B, Sokol ER. The predictive value of a cystocele for concomitant vaginal apical prolapse. J Urol 2013; 189 (1) 200-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar