Vaginal hysterectomy at the time of transvaginal mesh placement.

INTRODUCTION: : Previous investigations have shown an increased risk of mesh erosion when concomitant vaginal hysterectomy is performed at the time of transvaginal reconstruction with mesh. We hypothesize that vaginal hysterectomy can be performed without a high risk of erosion. METHODS: : This is a retrospective, repeated-measures study of women with uterovaginal prolapse who underwent vaginal hysterectomy and pelvic reconstruction with a transvaginal mesh technique using the Prolift system. Mesh was never placed behind the cuff closure and "T" incisions were not used. We compared preoperative quality-of-life and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification values to postoperative values. RESULTS: : Forty women met the study criteria. The median length of follow-up was 12 months (range 4-43 months). Thirty-two (80%) of the women had at least 1 year of follow-up. Significant improvements were found in all quality-of-life measures. Except for genital hiatus and perineal body length, a significant change was seen in all Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification measures. The greatest mean change found was for point "C" going from +2.4 to -6.8 cm (P < 0.001). There was 1 (2.5%) mesh erosion. CONCLUSIONS: : When incisions for mesh placement are kept separate from the vaginal cuff, transvaginal mesh reconstruction can be safely performed at the time of hysterectomy.

Quality of life and surgical satisfaction after vaginal reconstructive vs obliterative surgery for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare quality of life and patient satisfaction after obliterative vs reconstructive surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of women who met the following inclusion criteria: age 65 years or older, leading edge of prolapse 4 cm or greater beyond the hymen, and vaginal reconstructive or obliterative surgery. Preoperative responses to the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) were collected retrospectively. We then mailed the same questionnaires, and the Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ-8), to these subjects postoperatively. RESULTS: Mode of surgery was evenly split (n = 45 per group) between the 90 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. Improvements from the preoperative to postoperative Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and Urogenital Distress Inventory were comparable as were postoperative Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire scores. CONCLUSION: Improvements in condition-specific quality of life and postoperative patient satisfaction measures are comparable in women with prolapse who undergo either reconstructive or obliterative surgery.