A long-term comparative study of Uphold™ transvaginal mesh kit against anterior colporrhaphy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Cystocele recurrence remains a major challenge. Anterior colporrhaphy (AC) offers variable success rates that are mostly poorer than native-tissue repairs in other compartments. We compared outcomes after the use of Uphold™ transvaginal mesh kit and AC.

METHODS

A retrospective external audit including patients after Uphold™ mesh implantation (2010-2016) analysed against previously published data obtained in identical fashion after AC at the same hospital (2002-2005). Patients underwent an interview, clinical examination and 4D-translabial ultrasound. Offline analysis was performed blinded against all other data.

RESULTS

Of 264 patients after mesh and 242 patients after AC, we saw 82 (31%) and 83 (34%), after a median interval of 3.9 years (range 0.4-7.3). Mean age was 64 years (34-86), mean body mass index was 27.7 kg/m (15-56) and median vaginal parity 3 deliveries (1-9). AC and mesh groups significantly differed with regard to median follow-up interval (4.3 vs 3.2 years), mean age (61.3 ± 12 vs 67.2 ± 7.5 years), vaginal parity (3 vs 2), past instrumental delivery (20 out of 83 vs 36 out of 82) and concurrent hysterectomy, other prolapse repair or midurethral sling (35 out of 83 vs 1 out of 82, 58 out of 83 vs 76 out of 82 and 12 out of 83 vs 29 out of 82 respectively). The mesh group had 9 cases of dyspareunia, 4 of chronic pelvic pain and 4 vaginal mesh exposures. Univariate comparison between groups for satisfaction and sonographic cystocele favoured mesh. However, point Ba, symptoms of prolapse and reoperation for prolapse were not significantly different. Associations were confirmed on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of two audit projects suggests that the transvaginal Uphold™ mesh kit may confer some advantages over AC for cystocele repair.