Ultrasound evaluation of anterior transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: correlation to 5-year clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal prolapse mesh may effectively restore vaginal anatomy. The aim of this study was to investigate how the in vivo mesh position correlates to clinical outcomes. METHODS: Seventy-one women operated on using Uphold mesh for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP-Q, C ≥ stage II) were examined 5 years after surgery by introital-perineal 2D ultrasound in a midsagittal plane at rest and Valsalva. The horizontal line and pubis symphysis were considered the reference for all measures. Ultrasound measures were statistically compared to clinical outcomes: POP-Q, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and subscales [Pelvic Organ Distress Inventory (PODI-6), and Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6)] and the VAS scale for pain. RESULTS: Original mesh length was preserved by 86% and correlated to improved pain as estimated by VAS scale (r 0.321). Valsalva was associated with a lowering of the superior and inferior mesh margins by 7.3 and 6.1 mm, respectively (p < 0.001) but a reduction of total mesh length by only 1 mm (30.2 ± 5.2 to 29.2 ± 4.7 mm, p < 0.001). Mobility of the anterior vaginal wall (bladder neck and midurethra) at Valsalva was parallel to downward movement of the mesh inferior margin (r 0.346 and 0.314) but inversely correlated to total UDI-6 (r - 0.254 and - 0.263). Mobility of the midurethra was inversely correlated to bladder emptying (PFDI-20 Question 19, r - 0.245). CONCLUSIONS: Five years after surgery, preserved original length of the mesh with apical support was correlated to improved anatomical and patient-reported outcomes. Mesh support to the vaginal apex was associated with improved bladder emptying and total urinary distress outcomes but not stress urinary incontinence.

Association between surgical volumes and real-world healthcare cost when using a mesh capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse: A 5-years comparison between single- versus multicenter use.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether high surgical volume at a single center was associated with lower healthcare costs compared to lower surgical volume in a multicenter setting. METHODS: All patients had symptomatic and anatomical apical prolapse (POP-Q ≥ stage II) with or without cystocele and were operated on by a standard surgical procedure using the Uphold mesh. Data on time of resource use in terms of surgery time, hospital stay and re-interventions across 5 years were compared between the single center (97 patients) and multicenter (173 patients, at 24 clinics). Unit costs for surgical time, inpatient and outpatient visits were extracted from the single-center hospital's operation analysis program and prime production cost. Total costs were estimated for primary surgery and during 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: Costs for primary surgery were comparable between the single and the multicenter ($13,561 ± 2688 and $13,867 ± 1177, P = 0.29). Follow-up costs 5 years after primary surgery were 2.8 times higher at the multicenter than single center ($3262 vs. $1149, P < 0.001). Mean cost per patient over 5 years was significantly lower at the single than multicenter [$14,710 (CI: 14,168-15,252) vs. $17,128 (CI: 16,952-17,305), P < 0.001)]. CONCLUSIONS: Using a mesh kit for apical pelvic organ prolapse in a high surgical volume center was associated with reduced healthcare costs compared with a lower volume multiple-site setting. The cost reduction at the high surgical volume center increased over time because of lower surgical and medical re-intervention rates for postoperative complications and recurrence.

Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare long-term effects of high-volume surgery at a single-center to multicenter use when using a mesh-capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair. METHODS: Five years after surgery 101 (88%) at the single center were compared with 164 (81.2%) in the multicenter trial. Outcome measurements included clinical examination, prolapse-specific symptom questionnaires [Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)] and pain estimation by VAS (0-10). RESULTS: Optimal apical segment outcome was 95% in the single- compared to 83.3% in the multicenter study (p < 0.001). POP recurrence in the anterior and posterior walls (POP-Q, Ba and Bp ≥ 0) was more common at the multicenter as compared to the single center [(19.8% vs 5.4%) and (26% vs 2.7%), (p < 0.001)]. Reoperations for POP and mesh-related complications were more frequent in the multicenter study [31/202 (15.3%) vs 7/116 (6.1%), p < 0.001]. Total PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 scores were comparable between the cohorts. There were no significant differences in overall pain scores in-between the cohorts during follow-up. At the single center, 1/81 patients (1.2%) had VAS 7/10, i.e. severe pain, as compared to 3/131 (2.3%) in the multicenter study (p = 0.277). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high objective and subjective long-term effectiveness of the procedure in both regular use, and at a high-volume center, centralizing the use of a standardized capturing-device guided transvaginal mesh for POP repair reduced secondary interventions by more than half.