Effects of Obesity on Urogynecologic Prolapse Surgery Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery in patients from various body mass index (BMI) categories to determine the association between obesity and surgical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 12, 2022; ClinicalTrials.gov was searched in September 2022 (PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022326255). Randomized and nonrandomized studies of urogynecologic POP surgery outcomes were accepted in which categories of BMI or obesity were compared. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: In total, 9,037 abstracts were screened; 759 abstracts were identified for full-text screening, and 31 articles were accepted for inclusion and data were extracted. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, and outcomes, including subjective outcomes, objective outcomes, and complications. Outcomes were compared among obesity categories (eg, BMI 30-34.9, 35-40, higher than 40), and meta-analysis was performed among different surgical approaches. Individual studies reported varying results as to whether obesity affects surgical outcomes. By meta-analysis, obesity (BMI 30 or higher) is associated with an increased odds of objective prolapse recurrence after vaginal prolapse repair (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI, 1.14-1.67) and after prolapse repair from any surgical approach (OR 1.31, 95% CI, 1.12-1.53) and with complications such as mesh exposure after both vaginal and laparoscopic POP repair (OR 2.10, 95% CI, 1.01-4.39). CONCLUSION: Obesity is associated with increased likelihood of prolapse recurrence and mesh complications after POP repair. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022326255.

Repair of Vesicovaginal Fistulae: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compile the current level of evidence regarding successful surgical treatment of vesicovaginal fistulae and how these perioperative interventions affect anatomic, patient-centered, and adverse outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception through September 9, 2022. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: This review included comparative studies (of any sample size) and single-group studies (1,000 or more participants) of primary or recurrent vesicovaginal fistula (ie, vesicovaginal fistula, urethrovaginal fistula, and bladder neck-vaginal fistula). We evaluated preintervention assessment or management, various techniques for intraoperative management, and postoperative management. Outcomes of interest included anatomic and objective outcomes (such as successful repair, fistula closure, urinary incontinence, recurrent fistula, perioperative complications) and subjective outcomes (such as voiding symptoms and quality of life). Abstracts and full-text articles were screened in duplicate, and study descriptions and findings were extracted into standardized extraction forms. Risk of bias was assessed independently by two investigators and adjudicated by a third. Study quality was summarized with standardized tools. We conducted random-effects model and restricted maximum-likelihood meta-analyses of relative risks when at least three studies compared similar interventions and reported similar outcome measures. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized into 11 domains: 1) preoperative assessment, 2) preoperative and postoperative physical therapy, 3) route of surgery, 4) incorporation of a flap, 5) trimming, 6) layered closure, 7) intraoperative antibiotics, 8) fibrin glue, 9) fascial sling, 10) postoperative Foley catheter duration, and 11) quality of life. Although the strength of the data is insufficient, preoperative phenazopyridine, physical therapy, layered closure, and intraoperative antibiotics seemed to improve the rate of successful fistula repair. Route of surgery (vaginal vs abdominal laparotomy) was determined primarily by surgeon preference and showed no difference in successful fistula repair. In addition, use of interpositional flaps, trimming fistula edges, fibrin glue, and fascial sling did not show significant improvement in rates of fistula cure. Overall, quality-of-life scores improved postoperatively regardless of route of repair and use of interpositional flaps. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the limited information available to guide evidence-based treatment of vesicovaginal fistula repair. Overall, high-quality evidence is lacking to provide guidelines; therefore, expert opinion remains the primary influence for fistula repair recommendations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021214948.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Use in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the psychometric properties of existing patient-reported outcome measures for women with prolapse using the COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) framework. Additional objectives were to describe the patient-reported outcome scoring method or interpretation, methods of administration, and to compile a list of the non-English languages in which the patient-reported outcomes are reportedly validated. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE was searched through September 2021. Study characteristics, patient-reported outcome details, and psychometric testing data were extracted. Methodologic quality was assessed with COSMIN guidelines. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting the validation of a patient-reported outcome in women with prolapse (or women with pelvic floor disorders that included a prolapse assessment) and reporting psychometric testing data on English-language patient-reported outcome for at least one measurement property per COSMIN and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services definitions were included, as well as studies reporting the translation of an existing patient-reported outcome into another language, a new method of patient-reported outcome administration, or a scoring interpretation. Studies reporting only pretreatment and posttreatment scores, only content or face validity, or only findings for nonprolapse domains of the patient-reported outcome were excluded. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Fifty-four studies covering 32 patient-reported outcomes were included; 106 studies assessing translation into a non-English language were excluded from the formal review. The number of validation studies per patient-reported outcome (one version of one questionnaire) ranged from 1 to 11. Reliability was the most reported measurement property, and most measurement properties received an average rating of sufficient. The condition-specific patient-reported outcomes had on average more studies and reported data across more measurement properties compared with adapted and generic patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although measurement property data vary on patient-reported outcomes for women with prolapse, most data were of good quality. Overall, condition-specific patient-reported outcomes had more studies and reported data across more measurement properties. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021278796.

Surgical Removal of Midurethral Sling in Women Undergoing Surgery for Presumed Mesh-Related Complications: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether some, or all, of the mesh needs to be removed when a midurethral sling is removed for complications. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from January 1, 1996, through May 1, 2021, were searched for articles that met the eligibility criteria with total, partial, or a combination of anti-incontinence mesh removal. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: All study designs were included (N≥10), and a priori criteria were used for acceptance standards. Studies were extracted for demographics, operative outcomes, and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed when possible. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We double-screened 11,887 abstracts; 45 eligible and unique studies were identified. Thirty-five were single-group studies that evaluated partial mesh removal, five were single-group studies that evaluated total mesh removal, and five were studies that compared partial mesh removal with total mesh removal. All of the studies were retrospective in nature; there were no randomized controlled studies. Comparative studies demonstrated that partial mesh removal had lower rates of postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) than total mesh removal (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.96). Single-group studies supported lower rates of postoperative SUI with partial mesh removal compared with total mesh removal (19.2% [95% CI 13.5-25.7] vs 48.7% [95% CI 31.2-66.4]). Both methods were similar with respect to associated pain, bladder outlet obstruction, mesh erosion or exposure, and lower urinary tract symptoms. Adverse events were infrequent. CONCLUSION: Postoperative SUI may be lower with partial mesh removal compared with total mesh removal. Other outcomes were similar regardless of the amount of mesh removed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD 42018093099.

Surgical interventions for posterior compartment prolapse and obstructed defecation symptoms: a systematic review with clinical practice recommendations.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Several posterior compartment surgical approaches are used to address posterior vaginal wall prolapse and obstructed defecation. We aimed to compare outcomes for both conditions among different surgical approaches. METHODS: A systematic review was performed comparing the impact of surgical interventions in the posterior compartment on prolapse and defecatory symptoms. MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 4 April 2018. Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective comparative and single-group studies of women undergoing posterior vaginal compartment surgery for vaginal bulge or bowel symptoms were included. Studies had to include both anatomical and symptom outcomes both pre- and post-surgery. RESULTS: Forty-six eligible studies reported on six surgery types. Prolapse and defecatory symptoms improved with native-tissue transvaginal rectocele repair, transanal rectocele repair, and stapled transanal rectocele repair (STARR) surgeries. Although prolapse was improved with sacrocolpoperineopexy, defecatory symptoms worsened. STARR caused high rates of fecal urgency postoperatively, but this symptom typically resolved with time. Site-specific posterior repairs improved prolapse stage and symptoms of obstructed defecation. Compared with the transanal route, native-tissue transvaginal repair resulted in greater improvement in anatomical outcomes, improved obstructed defecation symptoms, and lower chances of rectal injury, but higher rates of dyspareunia. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery in the posterior vaginal compartment typically has a high rate of success for anatomical outcomes, obstructed defecation, and bulge symptoms, although these may not persist over time. Based on this evidence, to improve anatomical and symptomatic outcomes, a native-tissue transvaginal rectocele repair should be preferentially performed.

Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to systematically review the literature on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery with uterine preservation (hysteropexy). We hypothesized that different hysteropexy surgeries would have similar POP outcomes but varying adverse event (AE) rates. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were reviewed from inception to January 2018 for comparative (any size) and single-arm studies (n ≥ 50) involving hysteropexy. Studies were extracted for participant characteristics, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and AEs and assessed for methodological quality. RESULTS: We identified 99 eligible studies: 53 comparing hysteropexy to POP surgery with hysterectomy, 42 single-arm studies on hysteropexy, and four studies comparing stage ≥2 hysteropexy types. Data on POP outcomes were heterogeneous and usually from <3 years of follow-up. Repeat surgery prevalence for POP after hysteropexy varied widely (0-29%) but was similar among hysteropexy types. When comparing sacrohysteropexy routes, the laparoscopic approach had lower recurrent prolapse symptoms [odds ratio (OR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.46), urinary retention (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.003-0.83), and blood loss (difference -104 ml, 95% CI -145 to -63 ml) than open sacrohysteropexy. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy had longer operative times than vaginal mesh hysteropexy (difference 119 min, 95% CI 102-136 min). Most commonly reported AEs included mesh exposure (0-39%), urinary retention (0-80%), and sexual dysfunction (0-48%). CONCLUSIONS: Hysteropexies have a wide range of POP recurrence and AEs; little data exist directly comparing different hysteropexy types. Therefore, for women choosing uterine preservation, surgeons should counsel them on outcomes and risks particular to the specific hysteropexy type planned.

Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the literature on apical pelvic organ prolapse surgery with uterine preservation compared with prolapse surgeries including hysterectomy and provide evidence-based guidelines. DATA SOURCES: The sources for our data were MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to January 2017. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We accepted randomized and nonrandomized studies of uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries compared with those involving hysterectomy. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, efficacy outcomes, and adverse events, and they were individually and collectively assessed for methodological quality. If 3 or more studies compared the same surgeries and reported the same outcome, a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: We screened 4467 abstracts and identified 94 eligible studies, 53 comparing uterine preservation to hysterectomy in prolapse surgery. Evidence was of moderate quality overall. Compared with hysterectomy plus mesh sacrocolpopexy, uterine preservation with sacrohysteropexy reduces mesh exposure, operative time, blood loss, and surgical cost without differences in prolapse recurrence. Compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension, uterine preservation in the form of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy improves the C point and vaginal length on the pelvic organ prolapse quantification exam, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain and functioning, and hospital stay, but open abdominal sacrohysteropexy worsens bothersome urinary symptoms, operative time, and quality of life. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy (vs with hysterectomy) decreases mesh exposure, reoperation for mesh exposure, postoperative bleeding, and estimated blood loss and improves posterior pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement. Transvaginal uterosacral or sacrospinous hysteropexy or the Manchester procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue suspension both showed improved operative time and estimated blood loss and no worsening of prolapse outcomes with uterine preservation. However, there is a significant lack of data on prolapse outcomes >3 years after surgery, the role of uterine preservation in obliterative procedures, and longer-term risk of uterine pathology after uterine preservation. CONCLUSION: Uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries improve operating time, blood loss, and risk of mesh exposure compared with similar surgical routes with concomitant hysterectomy and do not significantly change short-term prolapse outcomes. Surgeons may offer uterine preservation as an option to appropriate women who desire this choice during apical prolapse repair.

Quantifying uncertainty in intervention effectiveness with structured expert judgement: an application to obstetric fistula.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a new application of structured expert judgement to assess the effectiveness of surgery to correct obstetric fistula in a low-income setting. Intervention effectiveness is a major input of evidence-informed priority setting in healthcare, but information on intervention effectiveness is generally lacking. This is particularly problematic in the context of poorly resourced healthcare settings where even efficacious interventions fail to translate into improvements in health. The few intervention effectiveness studies related to obstetric fistula treatment focus on the experience of single facilities and do not consider the impact of multiple factors that may affect health outcomes. DESIGN: We use the classical model of structured expert judgement, a method that has been used to quantify uncertainty in the areas of engineering and environmental risk assessment when data are unavailable. Under this method, experts quantify their uncertainty about rates of long-term disability in patients with fistula following treatment in different contexts, but the information content drawn from their responses is statistically conditioned on the accuracy and informativeness of their responses to a set of calibration questions. Through this method, we develop best estimates and uncertainty bounds for the rate of disability associated with each treatment scenario and setting. PARTICIPANTS: Eight experts in obstetric fistula repair in low and middle income countries. RESULTS: Estimates developed using performance weights were statistically superior to those involving a simple averaging of expert responses. The performance-weight decision maker's assessments are narrower for 9 of the 10 calibration questions and 21 of 23 variables of interest. CONCLUSIONS: We find that structured expert judgement is a viable approach to investigating the effectiveness of medical interventions where randomised controlled trials are not possible. Understanding the effectiveness of surgery performed at different types of facilities can guide programme planning to increase access to fistula treatment.

Charitable platforms in global surgery: a systematic review of their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and role training.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to propose a classification scheme for platforms of surgical delivery in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to review the literature documenting their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and role in training. Approximately 28 % of the global burden of disease is surgical. In LMICs, much of this burden is borne by a rapidly growing international charitable sector, in fragmented platforms ranging from short-term trips to specialized hospitals. Systematic reviews of these platforms, across regions and across disease conditions, have not been performed. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed from 1960 to 2013. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined a priori. Bibliographies of retrieved studies were searched by hand. Of the 8,854 publications retrieved, 104 were included. RESULTS: Surgery by international charitable organizations is delivered under two, specialized hospitals and temporary platforms. Among the latter, short-term surgical missions were the most common and appeared beneficial when no other option was available. Compared to other platforms, however, worse results and a lack of cost-effectiveness curtailed their role. Self-contained temporary platforms that did not rely on local infrastructure showed promise, based on very few studies. Specialized hospitals provided effective treatment and appeared sustainable; cost-effectiveness evidence was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Because the charitable sector delivers surgery in vastly divergent ways, systematic review of these platforms has been difficult. This paper provides a framework from which to study these platforms for surgery in LMICs. Given the available evidence, self-contained temporary platforms and specialized surgical centers appear to provide more effective and cost-effective care than short-term surgical mission trips, except when no other delivery platform exists.

Experience with a low-pressure colonic pouch (Mainz II) urinary diversion for irreparable vesicovaginal fistula and bladder extrophy in East Africa.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We report our experience with a low-pressure colonic pouch for urinary diversion in women with irreparable vesicovaginal fistulas and bladder extrophy. METHODS: This is a case series of 35 women with irreparable vesicovaginal fistula who underwent urinary diversion and two cases performed for bladder extrophy. RESULTS: Partial or complete loss of the urethra was present in over 90% of fistula cases. Fifty-five percent had prior vaginal repairs. The median length of stay was 21 days. Median follow-up for 29 (78%) patients was 18 months. Nighttime urinary incontinence occurred in 31%. Twenty-one (91%) of 23 patients had a serum creatinine <1.5 although all patients had evidence of acidosis. Two patients died 4 years after surgery from sepsis and renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary diversion using the Mainz pouch II can be performed in the developing world with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. Acidosis and nighttime incontinence are the most common complications.

Posterior vaginal wall prolapse does not correlate with fecal symptoms or objective measures of anorectal function.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship among the degree of posterior vaginal wall prolapse, anorectal symptoms, and physiology. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective study that included patients with fecal dysfunction and prolapse/urinary symptoms. A validated instrument for fecal incontinence and the ROME II criteria were used. Anal physiologic testing was performed selectively on the basis of bowel symptoms. Patients were divided into 2 groups by pelvic organ prolapse quantification score clinical examination: group I: Ap/Bp < -1, and group II: Ap/Bp > or = -1. The association among the degree of prolapse, bowel symptoms, and physiologic findings was examined with the use of Fisher's exact test and logistic regression models. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients with a mean age of 63 years (range, 24-90 years) were evaluated. There were 62 patients (47%) in group I and 70 patients (53%) in group II. Overall, 40.9% of the patients had constipation/obstructed defecation, and 25% of the patients had fecal incontinence. Ninety-seven patients underwent physiologic testing. At manometry, both resting and squeeze pressures were significantly higher in patients in group II. Overall, patients with a higher resting pressure (P = .001) and increased rectal capacity (P = .008) were more likely to be continent, and patients with a lower squeeze pressure were more likely to be incontinent (P = .001). Ultrasonography demonstrated anterior sphincter defect in 21.9% of the patients and a perineal body of <10 mm in 35.6% of the patients, with no correlation with the degree of prolapse. Patients with sphincter defects were 3 times more likely to have fecal incontinence (95% CI, 1.03, 8.75; P = .04). There was no association between electromyography and pudendal nerve terminal latencies and the degree of prolapse. Patients with prolonged pudendal nerve terminal latencies were more likely to be incontinent (P = .033). On defecography, 28% of the patients had concomitant enterocele, and 21.3% of the patients had intussusception, which was not detected by physical examination. CONCLUSION: Anorectal symptoms do not correlate with the degree of posterior vaginal wall prolapse, nor does the presence of prolapse equate to abnormal physiologic test results. Bowel symptoms may result from primary anorectal abnormalities, which are demonstrated by physiologic studies.