Safety of Vaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Sacropexy for Cystocele Repair: Results of the Prosthetic Pelvic Floor Repair Randomized Controlled Trial

Laparoscopic mesh sacropexy (LS) or transvaginal mesh repair (TVM) are surgical techniques used to treat cystoceles. Health authorities have highlighted the need for comparative studies to evaluate the safety of surgeries with meshes. To compare the rate of complications, and functional and anatomic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European urology 2018-08, Vol.74 (2), p.167-176
Hauptverfasser: Lucot, Jean-Philippe, Cosson, Michel, Bader, Georges, Debodinance, Philippe, Akladios, Cherif, Salet-Lizée, Delphine, Delporte, Patrick, Savary, Denis, Ferry, Philippe, Deffieux, Xavier, Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine, de Tayrac, Renaud, Blanc, Sébastien, Fournet, Sandrine, Wattiez, Arnaud, Villet, Richard, Ravit, Marion, Jacquetin, Bernard, Fritel, Xavier, Fauconnier, Arnaud
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 176
container_issue 2
container_start_page 167
container_title European urology
container_volume 74
creator Lucot, Jean-Philippe
Cosson, Michel
Bader, Georges
Debodinance, Philippe
Akladios, Cherif
Salet-Lizée, Delphine
Delporte, Patrick
Savary, Denis
Ferry, Philippe
Deffieux, Xavier
Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine
de Tayrac, Renaud
Blanc, Sébastien
Fournet, Sandrine
Wattiez, Arnaud
Villet, Richard
Ravit, Marion
Jacquetin, Bernard
Fritel, Xavier
Fauconnier, Arnaud
description Laparoscopic mesh sacropexy (LS) or transvaginal mesh repair (TVM) are surgical techniques used to treat cystoceles. Health authorities have highlighted the need for comparative studies to evaluate the safety of surgeries with meshes. To compare the rate of complications, and functional and anatomical outcomes between LS and TVM. Multicenter randomized controlled trial from October 2012 to April 2014 in 11 French public hospitals. Women with cystocele stage ≥2 (pelvic organ prolapse quantification), aged 45–75 yr, without previous prolapse surgery. Synthetic nonabsorbable mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space, sutured to the promontory (LS) or maintained by arms through pelvic ligaments (TVM). Rate of surgical complications ≥grade II according to the modified Clavien–Dindo classification at 1 yr. Secondary outcomes were reintervention rate, and functional and anatomical results. A total of 130 women were randomized in LS and 132 in TVM; five women withdrew before intervention, leaving 129 in LS and 128 in TVM. The rate of complications ≥grade II was lower after LS than after TVM, but did not meet statistical significance (17% vs 26%, treatment difference 8.6% [95% confidence interval, CI −1.5 to 18]; p=0.088). The rate of complications of grade III or higher was nonetheless significantly lower after LS (LS=0.8%, TVM=9.4%, treatment difference 8.6% [95% CI 3.4%; 15%]; p=0.001). LS was converted to TVM in 6.3%. The total reoperation rate was lower after LS but did not meet statistical significance (LS=4.7%, TVM=10.9%, treatment difference 6.3% [95% CI −0.4 to 13.3]; p=0.060). There was no difference in symptoms, quality of life, improvement, composite definition of success, anatomical results rates between groups except for the vaginal apex and length, and dyspareunia (in favor of LS). LS is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele in sexually active patients. LS is safer than TVM, but may not be feasible in all cases. Both techniques offer same functional outcomes, success rates, and anatomical outcomes, but sexual function is better preserved by LS. Our study demonstrates that laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele. LS offers equivalent success rates to vaginal mesh procedures, but is safer with a lower rate of complications and reoperations, and sexual function is better preserved. Our study demonstrates that laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele. LS offers equi
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.044
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01782456v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S030228381830099X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2007982865</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-8dc148c6908b5cf46523e79128ea6aa0165e0c26e4a4f73f7d1d15acb3534a653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhS0EokPhDRDyEhYJ_k08LJCqEaVIg6ja0q3lcW46HnniYCcjwtvwpnjI0CWrY1nfOVf3HoReU1JSQqv3uxLGOMZQMkJVSWhJhHiCFlTVvKhlRZ6iBeGEFUxxdYZepLQjhHC55M_RGVuKmlHBF-j3rWlhmHBo8b15cJ3x-CukLb4d4wPECd9DTGPCa9ObGJINvbMnwNgYevg54TZEvJrSECx4wDfQGxc_ZE2jH9IxeNgCvs7urEO2X4M_ZLn0IRtnHN-Yrgl79wsavArdEIP3-XkXnfEv0bPW-ASvTnqOvl9-ultdFetvn7-sLtaFlUQNhWosFcpWS6I20raikoxDvaRMgamMyReTQCyrQBjR1rytG9pQaeyGSy5MJfk5ejfnbo3XfXR7EycdjNNXF2t9_CO0VkzI6kAz-3Zm-xh-jJAGvXcpr-9NB2FMmhFSLxVTf2PFjOZzpRShfcymRB-L1Ds9F6mPReYpOheZbW9OE8bNHppH07_mMvBxBiDf5OAg6mQddBYaF8EOugnu_xP-AMIsstU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2007982865</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Safety of Vaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Sacropexy for Cystocele Repair: Results of the Prosthetic Pelvic Floor Repair Randomized Controlled Trial</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Lucot, Jean-Philippe ; Cosson, Michel ; Bader, Georges ; Debodinance, Philippe ; Akladios, Cherif ; Salet-Lizée, Delphine ; Delporte, Patrick ; Savary, Denis ; Ferry, Philippe ; Deffieux, Xavier ; Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine ; de Tayrac, Renaud ; Blanc, Sébastien ; Fournet, Sandrine ; Wattiez, Arnaud ; Villet, Richard ; Ravit, Marion ; Jacquetin, Bernard ; Fritel, Xavier ; Fauconnier, Arnaud</creator><creatorcontrib>Lucot, Jean-Philippe ; Cosson, Michel ; Bader, Georges ; Debodinance, Philippe ; Akladios, Cherif ; Salet-Lizée, Delphine ; Delporte, Patrick ; Savary, Denis ; Ferry, Philippe ; Deffieux, Xavier ; Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine ; de Tayrac, Renaud ; Blanc, Sébastien ; Fournet, Sandrine ; Wattiez, Arnaud ; Villet, Richard ; Ravit, Marion ; Jacquetin, Bernard ; Fritel, Xavier ; Fauconnier, Arnaud</creatorcontrib><description>Laparoscopic mesh sacropexy (LS) or transvaginal mesh repair (TVM) are surgical techniques used to treat cystoceles. Health authorities have highlighted the need for comparative studies to evaluate the safety of surgeries with meshes. To compare the rate of complications, and functional and anatomical outcomes between LS and TVM. Multicenter randomized controlled trial from October 2012 to April 2014 in 11 French public hospitals. Women with cystocele stage ≥2 (pelvic organ prolapse quantification), aged 45–75 yr, without previous prolapse surgery. Synthetic nonabsorbable mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space, sutured to the promontory (LS) or maintained by arms through pelvic ligaments (TVM). Rate of surgical complications ≥grade II according to the modified Clavien–Dindo classification at 1 yr. Secondary outcomes were reintervention rate, and functional and anatomical results. A total of 130 women were randomized in LS and 132 in TVM; five women withdrew before intervention, leaving 129 in LS and 128 in TVM. The rate of complications ≥grade II was lower after LS than after TVM, but did not meet statistical significance (17% vs 26%, treatment difference 8.6% [95% confidence interval, CI −1.5 to 18]; p=0.088). The rate of complications of grade III or higher was nonetheless significantly lower after LS (LS=0.8%, TVM=9.4%, treatment difference 8.6% [95% CI 3.4%; 15%]; p=0.001). LS was converted to TVM in 6.3%. The total reoperation rate was lower after LS but did not meet statistical significance (LS=4.7%, TVM=10.9%, treatment difference 6.3% [95% CI −0.4 to 13.3]; p=0.060). There was no difference in symptoms, quality of life, improvement, composite definition of success, anatomical results rates between groups except for the vaginal apex and length, and dyspareunia (in favor of LS). LS is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele in sexually active patients. LS is safer than TVM, but may not be feasible in all cases. Both techniques offer same functional outcomes, success rates, and anatomical outcomes, but sexual function is better preserved by LS. Our study demonstrates that laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele. LS offers equivalent success rates to vaginal mesh procedures, but is safer with a lower rate of complications and reoperations, and sexual function is better preserved. Our study demonstrates that laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele. LS offers equivalent success rates to vaginal mesh procedures, but is safer with a lower rate of complications and reoperations, and preserves sexual function better.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0302-2838</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7560</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1421-993X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.044</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29472143</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Complications ; Cystocele ; Genital prolapse ; Gynecology and obstetrics ; Human health and pathology ; Life Sciences ; Mesh ; Randomized controlled trial ; Surgery</subject><ispartof>European urology, 2018-08, Vol.74 (2), p.167-176</ispartof><rights>2018 European Association of Urology</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-8dc148c6908b5cf46523e79128ea6aa0165e0c26e4a4f73f7d1d15acb3534a653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-8dc148c6908b5cf46523e79128ea6aa0165e0c26e4a4f73f7d1d15acb3534a653</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7856-2853 ; 0000-0002-0161-291X ; 0000-0002-4987-8127 ; 0000-0002-1465-8079 ; 0000-0003-4440-0260 ; 0000-0002-4352-4782 ; 0000-0001-6189-2741</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030228381830099X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29472143$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-01782456$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lucot, Jean-Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cosson, Michel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bader, Georges</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Debodinance, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akladios, Cherif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salet-Lizée, Delphine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delporte, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savary, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferry, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deffieux, Xavier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Tayrac, Renaud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blanc, Sébastien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fournet, Sandrine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wattiez, Arnaud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villet, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ravit, Marion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacquetin, Bernard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritel, Xavier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fauconnier, Arnaud</creatorcontrib><title>Safety of Vaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Sacropexy for Cystocele Repair: Results of the Prosthetic Pelvic Floor Repair Randomized Controlled Trial</title><title>European urology</title><addtitle>Eur Urol</addtitle><description>Laparoscopic mesh sacropexy (LS) or transvaginal mesh repair (TVM) are surgical techniques used to treat cystoceles. Health authorities have highlighted the need for comparative studies to evaluate the safety of surgeries with meshes. To compare the rate of complications, and functional and anatomical outcomes between LS and TVM. Multicenter randomized controlled trial from October 2012 to April 2014 in 11 French public hospitals. Women with cystocele stage ≥2 (pelvic organ prolapse quantification), aged 45–75 yr, without previous prolapse surgery. Synthetic nonabsorbable mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space, sutured to the promontory (LS) or maintained by arms through pelvic ligaments (TVM). Rate of surgical complications ≥grade II according to the modified Clavien–Dindo classification at 1 yr. Secondary outcomes were reintervention rate, and functional and anatomical results. A total of 130 women were randomized in LS and 132 in TVM; five women withdrew before intervention, leaving 129 in LS and 128 in TVM. The rate of complications ≥grade II was lower after LS than after TVM, but did not meet statistical significance (17% vs 26%, treatment difference 8.6% [95% confidence interval, CI −1.5 to 18]; p=0.088). The rate of complications of grade III or higher was nonetheless significantly lower after LS (LS=0.8%, TVM=9.4%, treatment difference 8.6% [95% CI 3.4%; 15%]; p=0.001). LS was converted to TVM in 6.3%. The total reoperation rate was lower after LS but did not meet statistical significance (LS=4.7%, TVM=10.9%, treatment difference 6.3% [95% CI −0.4 to 13.3]; p=0.060). There was no difference in symptoms, quality of life, improvement, composite definition of success, anatomical results rates between groups except for the vaginal apex and length, and dyspareunia (in favor of LS). LS is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele in sexually active patients. LS is safer than TVM, but may not be feasible in all cases. Both techniques offer same functional outcomes, success rates, and anatomical outcomes, but sexual function is better preserved by LS. Our study demonstrates that laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele. LS offers equivalent success rates to vaginal mesh procedures, but is safer with a lower rate of complications and reoperations, and sexual function is better preserved. Our study demonstrates that laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele. LS offers equivalent success rates to vaginal mesh procedures, but is safer with a lower rate of complications and reoperations, and preserves sexual function better.</description><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Cystocele</subject><subject>Genital prolapse</subject><subject>Gynecology and obstetrics</subject><subject>Human health and pathology</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Mesh</subject><subject>Randomized controlled trial</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><issn>0302-2838</issn><issn>1873-7560</issn><issn>1421-993X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhS0EokPhDRDyEhYJ_k08LJCqEaVIg6ja0q3lcW46HnniYCcjwtvwpnjI0CWrY1nfOVf3HoReU1JSQqv3uxLGOMZQMkJVSWhJhHiCFlTVvKhlRZ6iBeGEFUxxdYZepLQjhHC55M_RGVuKmlHBF-j3rWlhmHBo8b15cJ3x-CukLb4d4wPECd9DTGPCa9ObGJINvbMnwNgYevg54TZEvJrSECx4wDfQGxc_ZE2jH9IxeNgCvs7urEO2X4M_ZLn0IRtnHN-Yrgl79wsavArdEIP3-XkXnfEv0bPW-ASvTnqOvl9-ultdFetvn7-sLtaFlUQNhWosFcpWS6I20raikoxDvaRMgamMyReTQCyrQBjR1rytG9pQaeyGSy5MJfk5ejfnbo3XfXR7EycdjNNXF2t9_CO0VkzI6kAz-3Zm-xh-jJAGvXcpr-9NB2FMmhFSLxVTf2PFjOZzpRShfcymRB-L1Ds9F6mPReYpOheZbW9OE8bNHppH07_mMvBxBiDf5OAg6mQddBYaF8EOugnu_xP-AMIsstU</recordid><startdate>20180801</startdate><enddate>20180801</enddate><creator>Lucot, Jean-Philippe</creator><creator>Cosson, Michel</creator><creator>Bader, Georges</creator><creator>Debodinance, Philippe</creator><creator>Akladios, Cherif</creator><creator>Salet-Lizée, Delphine</creator><creator>Delporte, Patrick</creator><creator>Savary, Denis</creator><creator>Ferry, Philippe</creator><creator>Deffieux, Xavier</creator><creator>Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine</creator><creator>de Tayrac, Renaud</creator><creator>Blanc, Sébastien</creator><creator>Fournet, Sandrine</creator><creator>Wattiez, Arnaud</creator><creator>Villet, Richard</creator><creator>Ravit, Marion</creator><creator>Jacquetin, Bernard</creator><creator>Fritel, Xavier</creator><creator>Fauconnier, Arnaud</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7856-2853</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0161-291X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4987-8127</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1465-8079</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4440-0260</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4352-4782</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6189-2741</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180801</creationdate><title>Safety of Vaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Sacropexy for Cystocele Repair: Results of the Prosthetic Pelvic Floor Repair Randomized Controlled Trial</title><author>Lucot, Jean-Philippe ; Cosson, Michel ; Bader, Georges ; Debodinance, Philippe ; Akladios, Cherif ; Salet-Lizée, Delphine ; Delporte, Patrick ; Savary, Denis ; Ferry, Philippe ; Deffieux, Xavier ; Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine ; de Tayrac, Renaud ; Blanc, Sébastien ; Fournet, Sandrine ; Wattiez, Arnaud ; Villet, Richard ; Ravit, Marion ; Jacquetin, Bernard ; Fritel, Xavier ; Fauconnier, Arnaud</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c508t-8dc148c6908b5cf46523e79128ea6aa0165e0c26e4a4f73f7d1d15acb3534a653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Cystocele</topic><topic>Genital prolapse</topic><topic>Gynecology and obstetrics</topic><topic>Human health and pathology</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Mesh</topic><topic>Randomized controlled trial</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lucot, Jean-Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cosson, Michel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bader, Georges</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Debodinance, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akladios, Cherif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salet-Lizée, Delphine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delporte, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savary, Denis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferry, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deffieux, Xavier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Tayrac, Renaud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blanc, Sébastien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fournet, Sandrine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wattiez, Arnaud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Villet, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ravit, Marion</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jacquetin, Bernard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fritel, Xavier</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fauconnier, Arnaud</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>European urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lucot, Jean-Philippe</au><au>Cosson, Michel</au><au>Bader, Georges</au><au>Debodinance, Philippe</au><au>Akladios, Cherif</au><au>Salet-Lizée, Delphine</au><au>Delporte, Patrick</au><au>Savary, Denis</au><au>Ferry, Philippe</au><au>Deffieux, Xavier</au><au>Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine</au><au>de Tayrac, Renaud</au><au>Blanc, Sébastien</au><au>Fournet, Sandrine</au><au>Wattiez, Arnaud</au><au>Villet, Richard</au><au>Ravit, Marion</au><au>Jacquetin, Bernard</au><au>Fritel, Xavier</au><au>Fauconnier, Arnaud</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Safety of Vaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Sacropexy for Cystocele Repair: Results of the Prosthetic Pelvic Floor Repair Randomized Controlled Trial</atitle><jtitle>European urology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur Urol</addtitle><date>2018-08-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>74</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>167</spage><epage>176</epage><pages>167-176</pages><issn>0302-2838</issn><eissn>1873-7560</eissn><eissn>1421-993X</eissn><abstract>Laparoscopic mesh sacropexy (LS) or transvaginal mesh repair (TVM) are surgical techniques used to treat cystoceles. Health authorities have highlighted the need for comparative studies to evaluate the safety of surgeries with meshes. To compare the rate of complications, and functional and anatomical outcomes between LS and TVM. Multicenter randomized controlled trial from October 2012 to April 2014 in 11 French public hospitals. Women with cystocele stage ≥2 (pelvic organ prolapse quantification), aged 45–75 yr, without previous prolapse surgery. Synthetic nonabsorbable mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space, sutured to the promontory (LS) or maintained by arms through pelvic ligaments (TVM). Rate of surgical complications ≥grade II according to the modified Clavien–Dindo classification at 1 yr. Secondary outcomes were reintervention rate, and functional and anatomical results. A total of 130 women were randomized in LS and 132 in TVM; five women withdrew before intervention, leaving 129 in LS and 128 in TVM. The rate of complications ≥grade II was lower after LS than after TVM, but did not meet statistical significance (17% vs 26%, treatment difference 8.6% [95% confidence interval, CI −1.5 to 18]; p=0.088). The rate of complications of grade III or higher was nonetheless significantly lower after LS (LS=0.8%, TVM=9.4%, treatment difference 8.6% [95% CI 3.4%; 15%]; p=0.001). LS was converted to TVM in 6.3%. The total reoperation rate was lower after LS but did not meet statistical significance (LS=4.7%, TVM=10.9%, treatment difference 6.3% [95% CI −0.4 to 13.3]; p=0.060). There was no difference in symptoms, quality of life, improvement, composite definition of success, anatomical results rates between groups except for the vaginal apex and length, and dyspareunia (in favor of LS). LS is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele in sexually active patients. LS is safer than TVM, but may not be feasible in all cases. Both techniques offer same functional outcomes, success rates, and anatomical outcomes, but sexual function is better preserved by LS. Our study demonstrates that laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele. LS offers equivalent success rates to vaginal mesh procedures, but is safer with a lower rate of complications and reoperations, and sexual function is better preserved. Our study demonstrates that laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) is a valuable option for primary repair of cystocele. LS offers equivalent success rates to vaginal mesh procedures, but is safer with a lower rate of complications and reoperations, and preserves sexual function better.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>29472143</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.044</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7856-2853</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0161-291X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4987-8127</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1465-8079</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4440-0260</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4352-4782</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6189-2741</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0302-2838
ispartof European urology, 2018-08, Vol.74 (2), p.167-176
issn 0302-2838
1873-7560
1421-993X
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_01782456v1
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Complications
Cystocele
Genital prolapse
Gynecology and obstetrics
Human health and pathology
Life Sciences
Mesh
Randomized controlled trial
Surgery
title Safety of Vaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Mesh Sacropexy for Cystocele Repair: Results of the Prosthetic Pelvic Floor Repair Randomized Controlled Trial
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T06%3A18%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Safety%20of%20Vaginal%20Mesh%20Surgery%20Versus%20Laparoscopic%20Mesh%20Sacropexy%20for%20Cystocele%20Repair:%20Results%20of%20the%20Prosthetic%20Pelvic%20Floor%20Repair%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial&rft.jtitle=European%20urology&rft.au=Lucot,%20Jean-Philippe&rft.date=2018-08-01&rft.volume=74&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=167&rft.epage=176&rft.pages=167-176&rft.issn=0302-2838&rft.eissn=1873-7560&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.044&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2007982865%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2007982865&rft_id=info:pmid/29472143&rft_els_id=S030228381830099X&rfr_iscdi=true