Mesh Exposure Following Vaginal Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy at the Time of Sacrocolpopexy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To compare vaginal mesh exposure rates, adverse events and composite failure within 1 year postoperatively in patients who undergo vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal mesh attachment (TVH) versus laparoscopic hysterectomy with abdominal mesh attachment (TLH) for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study is a secondary analysis of data collected retrospectively at one institution and the multicenter randomized control PACT trial. Women were excluded for no follow-up between 9 months and 2 years postoperatively or undergoing concurrent non-urogynecologic procedures. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, 182 patients underwent TLH and 132 TVH. There were 15 (4.8%) vaginal mesh exposures: 12 (6.6%) in the TLH and 3 (2.3%) in the TVH group (p = 0.133) with zero mesh erosions. Logistic regression analysis for mesh exposure in the TLH vs. TVH groups controlling for BMI, posterior repair and surgeon training also showed no significant difference (OR 4.8, 95% CI 0.94, 24.8, p = 0.059). The overall intraoperative complication rate was low (19/314, 6.1%) with a higher rate of bladder injury in the TLH group (4.4% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.049). The TLH group had a higher rate of UTI (8.2% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.027) and clean intermittent catheterization (11% vs. 3%, p = 0.009). At 1-year follow-up, there was no difference in composite failure (6%), bulge symptoms (5%) or retreatment (1%) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, there is no significant difference in vaginal mesh exposure rates between vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal mesh attachment and laparoscopic hysterectomy with abdominal mesh attachment. Both groups have equal efficacy with low rates of complications.

Voiding function after sacrocolpopexy versus native tissue transvaginal repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse in an ERAS era: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to compare time to return of voiding function and associated complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (SCP) versus transvaginal native tissue repair in patients with same-day or early discharge. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary care center. The electronic medical record system was queried for women who underwent native tissue vaginal repair or SCP for apical prolapse between March and December 2020 using CPT codes for sacrocolpopexy (57425), extraperitoneal (57282), and intraperitoneal colpopexy (57283). Voiding success was our primary outcome and was defined by a postvoid residual < 150 ml. Secondary outcomes included catheter days and urinary tract infections. The total number of participants was based on a power calculation using internal institutional rates. Participants were compared based on the surgical approach. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess for confounding factors. RESULTS: We included 134 women: 63 SCP and 71 native tissue. The failure rate of the first postoperative voiding trial was 34 vs. 11% (odds ratio: 4.91; 95% CI 1.96-12.3, p < 0.01) in the vaginal and SCP groups, respectively. Both groups had a similar success rate of a second voiding trial (100% in SCP group vs. 95.7% in the vaginal repair group, p = 1). The total number of days (3.108 vs. 1.603 days, p < 0.01) to return of bladder function, postoperative urinary tract infections (23.9 vs. 6.35%, p < 0.01) and emergency department visits (15.5 vs. 1.59%, p < 0.01) were all higher in the vaginal repair group. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal apical native tissue repair had a fivefold greater risk of acute postoperative urinary retention compared to sacrocolpopexy in addition to increased rates of post-operative urinary tract infection and emergency department visits for urinary tract concerns.

Validation of an educational simulation model for vaginal hysterectomy training: a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The Miya Model ™ (Miyazaki Enterprises, Winston-Salem, NC, USA) was designed as a realistic vaginal surgery simulation model. Our aim was to describe this model and present pilot data on validity and reliability of the model as an assessment tool of vaginal hysterectomy skills. METHODS: We video recorded ten obstetrics and gynecology residents (novice group) and ten practicing gynecologists (expert group) performing vaginal hysterectomy using the Miya model. Blood loss and time taken to complete the procedure were documented. Participants evaluated the model using a postsimulation survey. In addition, two experienced gynecologic surgeons independently evaluated video recordings of each participant's performance using two previously validated global rating scales: Reznick's Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS) and Vaginal Surgical Skills Index (VSSI). RESULTS: Most participants (80% of novice and 100% of expert group) rated the model as effective or highly effective for vaginal hysterectomy training and assessment. Median time to procedure completion was significantly higher in the novice group, whereas median estimated blood loss was no different between groups. No significant differences were observed in the composite median OSATS or VSSI scores between groups. The interrater reliability indices for subscales and composite scores of the OSATS and VSSI were high and ranged from 0.79 to 0.90 and 0.77 to 0.93, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: With further study, the Miya Model may be a useful tool for teaching and assessing vaginal surgical skills.