RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Reoperation for prolapse recurrence after sacrospinous mesh hysteropexy
Characteristics of women choosing retreatment
Napoe, G. S., Luchristt, D., Sridhar, A., Ellington, D., Ridgeway, B., Mazloomdoost, D., Sung, V., Ninivaggio, C., Harvie, H., Santiago-Lastra, Y., Gantz, M. G., & Zyczynski, H. M. (2023). Reoperation for prolapse recurrence after sacrospinous mesh hysteropexy: Characteristics of women choosing retreatment. International Urogynecology Journal, 34(1), 255-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05411-2
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Factors that contribute to reoperation and surgical approaches for the management of recurrent uterovaginal prolapse after vaginal mesh hysteropexy (mesh hysteropexy) are unknown. We aimed to describe surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after vaginal mesh hysteropexy, and patient characteristics in those who chose reoperation.
METHODS: This is a descriptive analysis of women who experienced treatment failure within 5 years of mesh hysteropexy in a multi-site randomized trial. The composite definition of treatment failure included retreatment (pessary or reoperation), prolapse beyond the hymen, or bothersome prolapse symptoms. Characteristics of those pursuing and not pursuing repeat prolapse surgery, measures of prolapse, and symptom severity are described.
RESULTS: Over 5-year follow up, 31/91 (34%) of the hysteropexy group met treatment failure criteria. All seven women who pursued reoperation reported bothersome prolapse symptoms; six were anatomic failures. Most seeking reoperation were early treatment failures; six (86%) by the 12-month visit and all by the 18-month visit. Compared to those electing expectant management, those pursuing reoperation had more apical prolapse, POP-Q point C median (IQR) -5.5 (-6.0, -4.0) cm versus +1.0 (-1.0, 3.0) cm respectively. Hysterectomy was performed in 6/7 reoperations (three vaginal, three endoscopic), with apical suspension in 5/6 hysterectomies. One participant with posterior compartment prolapse underwent transvaginal enterocele plication, uterosacral ligament suspension with posterior colpoperineorrhaphy. At a mean surgical follow-up of 34.3 (15.8) months, all women remained without anatomic or symptomatic failure.
CONCLUSIONS: When recurrent prolapse after mesh hysteropexy occurred, most women did not choose reoperation. Those who pursued surgery experienced more significant apical prolapse and were universally symptomatic.
