Serious complications and recurrences after pelvic organ prolapse surgery for 2309 women in the VIGI-MESH registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of serious complications and reoperations for recurrence after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and compare the three most common types of repair. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using a registry. SETTING: Nineteen French surgical centres. POPULATION: A total of 2309 women participated between 2017 and 2019. METHODS: A multivariate analysis including an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach was used to obtain three comparable groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serious complications and subsequent reoperations for POP recurrence. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 17.6 months. Surgeries were native tissue vaginal repairs (n = 504), transvaginal mesh placements (n = 692) and laparoscopic sacropexies with mesh (n = 1113). Serious complications occurred among 52 women (2.3%), and reoperation for POP recurrence was required for 32 women (1.4%). At 1 year the cumulative weighted incidence of serious complications was 1.8% for native tissue vaginal repair, 3.9% for transvaginal mesh and 2.2% for sacropexy, and the rates for reoperation for recurrence of POP were 1.5, 0.7 and 1.1%, respectively. Compared with native tissue vaginal repair, the risk of serious complications was higher in the transvaginal mesh group (weighted hazard ratio, wHR 3.84, 95% CI 2.43-6.08) and the sacropexy group (wHR 2.48, 95% CI 1.45-4.23), whereas the risk of reoperation for prolapse recurrence was lower in both the transvaginal mesh (wHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13-0.39) and sacropexy (wHR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18-0.47) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that native tissue vaginal repairs have the lowest risk of serious complications but the highest risk of reoperation for recurrence. These results are useful for informing women and for shared decision making. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic sacropexy had fewer serious complications than transvaginal mesh and fewer reoperations for recurrence than vaginal repair.

[Diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease: Clinical, paraclinical, imaging and laparoscopy criteria. CNGOF and SPILF Pelvic Inflammatory Diseases Guidelines]. / Diagnostic d'une infection génitale haute : critères cliniques, paracliniques, imagerie, et cœlioscopie. RPC infections génitales hautes CNGOF et SPILF.

The objective of this literature review is to update the recommendations for clinical practice about the diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), microbiologic diagnosis excluded. An adnexal pain or cervical motion tenderness are the signs that allow a positive diagnosis of PID (LE2). Associated signs (fever, leucorrhoea, metrorrhagia) reinforce clinical diagnosis (LE2). In a woman consulting for symptoms compatible with PID, a pelvic clinical examination is recommended (grade B). In cases of suspected PID, hyperleukocytosis associated with a high C-reactive protein suggests a complicated PID or a differential diagnosis such as acute appendicitis (LE3). The absence of hyperleukocytosis or normal CRP does not rule out the diagnosis of PID (LE1). When PID is suspected, a blood test with a blood count and a CRP test is recommended (grade C). Pelvic ultrasound scan does not contribute to the positive diagnosis of uncomplicated PID because it is insensitive and unspecific (LE3). However, ultrasound scan is recommended to look for signs of complicated PID (polymorphic collection) or differential diagnosis (grade C). Waiting for an ultrasound scan to be performed should not delay the start-up of antibiotic therapy. In case of diagnostic uncertainty, an abdominal-pelvic CT scan with contrast injection is useful for differential diagnosis of urinary, digestive or gynaecological origin (LE2). Laparoscopy is not recommended for the unique purpose of the positive diagnosis of PID (grade B).