Comparison of anterior colporrhaphy and vaginal mesh therapy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mukhammad Arif Hadi Khoirudin; Nidia Nursafitri; Mauliya Sri Sukmawati Wahyudi; Muhammad Zainul Fikri; Dita Diana Parti; Wiwien Sugih Utami; Dian Eka Putri Harnandhari

doi:10.22146/inajbcs.v57i3.19977

Mukhammad Arif Hadi Khoirudin Faculty Medicine, University of Jember, Jember, Indonesia.
Nidia Nursafitri Faculty Medicine, University of Jember, Jember, Indonesia.
Mauliya Sri Sukmawati Wahyudi Faculty Medicine, University of Jember, Jember, Indonesia.
Muhammad Zainul Fikri Faculty Medicine, University of Islamic Malang, Malang, Indonesia.
Dita Diana Parti Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty Medicine, University of Jember, Jember, Indonesia.
Wiwien Sugih Utami Department of Parasitology, Faculty Medicine, University of Jember, Jember, Indonesia.
Dian Eka Putri Harnandhari Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soebandi Hospital, Jember, Indonesia.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/inajbcs.v57i3.19977

Keywords: stress urinary incontinence, anterior colporrhaphy, vaginal mesh, pelvic organ prolapse

Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common pelvic disorder among women. Although it is not life-threatening, POP represents significant health concern because it can cause urinary incontinence, decrease sexual function, and impair quality of life. This systematically review was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of anterior colporrhaphy with vaginal mesh therapy in the management of POP. The data sources were selected for their reputation in publishing high-quality research in urology and women’s health, including PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library, covering publications from 2014 to 2024. We included both randomized and non-randomized studies comparing anterior colporrhaphy with vaginal mesh therapy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), ensuring a comprehensive review of the available evidence. Data were extracted on sample size, study location, surgical technique, patient satisfaction, reoperation rates, mesh erosion, pain, sexual function, operative time, length of hospital stay, and other complications. A total of 3,528 articles were collected. After removing 2,834 duplicates, 694 unique records remained. Following a quality assessment, six studies met the final inclusion criteria. Analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies revealed no significant differences between the two procedures in terms of erosion rates, SUI incidence, reoperation rates, or patient satisfaction. These findings highlight the importance for urogynecologists to carefully consider patient identification, selection, comorbidities, and the choice of POP repair procedure.

References

Shek K, Dietz H. Assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med, 2016;21(7):190-7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogrm.2011.04.004

Carroll L, O' Sullivan C, Doody C, Perrotta C, Fullen B. Pelvic organ prolapse: the lived experience. PLoS One, 2022;17(11 November):1-24.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276788

Jha S, Gopinath D. Prolapse or incontinence: what affects sexual function the most? Int Urogynecol ,. 2016;27(4):607-11.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2887-2

Razzak L. Pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse. In: pelvic floor disorders. InTech; 2018.

https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76629

Zeiger BB, da Silva Carramão S, Del Roy CA, da Silva TT, Hwang SM, Auge APF. Vaginal pessary in advanced pelvic organ prolapse: impact on quality of life. Int Urogynecol J, 2022;33(7):2013-20.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-05002-7

Cassagne C, Perriard F, Cornille A, Salerno J, Panel L. Anterior and apical prolapse: comparison of vaginal mesh surgery to vaginal surgery with no mesh. J Clin Med, 2023;12(6).

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062212

van der Vaart LR, Vollebregt A, Milani AL, Lagro-Janssen AL, Duijnhoven RG, Roovers JPWR, et al. Pessary or surgery for a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: the PEOPLE study, a multicentre prospective cohort study. BJOG, 2022;129(5):820-9.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16950

Arenholt LTS, Pedersen BG, Glavind K, Glavind-Kristensen M, DeLancey JOL. Paravaginal defect: anatomy, clinical findings, and imaging. Int Urogynecol J, 2017;28(5):661-73.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3096-3

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016;2016(11).

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub6

Seifalian A, Basma Z, Digesu A, Khullar V. Polypropylene pelvic mesh: what went wrong and what will be of the future? Biomedicines, 2023;11(3).

https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11030741

Dibb B, Woodgate F, Taylor L. When things go wrong: experiences of vaginal mesh complications. Int Urogynecol J, 2023;34(7):1575-81.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05422-z

Jokhio AH, Rizvi RM, MacArthur C. Prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse in women, associated factors and impact on quality of life in rural Pakistan: population-based study. BMC Womens Health, 2020;20(1): 82.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-00934-6

Balzarro M, Rubilotta E, Porcaro AB, Trabacchin N, Sarti A, Cerruto MA, et al. Long-term follow-up of anterior vaginal repair: a comparison among colporrhaphy, colporrhaphy with reinforcement by xenograft, and mesh. Neurourol Urodyn, 2017;37(1):278-83.

https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23288

Curtiss N, Duckett J. A long-term cohort study of surgery for recurrent prolapse comparing mesh augmented anterior repairs to anterior colporrhaphy. Gynecol Surg, 2018;15(1):1-5.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1035-z

Minassian VA, Parekh M, Poplawsky D, Gorman J, Litzy L. Randomized controlled trial comparing two procedures for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn, 2014;33:72-7.

https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22396

Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R, Kinne I, Jakobsson U, Teleman P. A 3-year follow-up after anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG, 2016;123(1):136-42.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13628

Tamanini JT, de Oliveira Souza Castro RC, Tamanini JM, Castro RA, Sartori MG, Girão MJ. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: medium term followup. J Urol, 2015;193(4):1298-304.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.003

Mangir N, Aldemir Dikici B, Chapple CR, MacNeil S. Landmarks in vaginal mesh development: polypropylene mesh for treatment of SUI and POP. Nat Rev Urol, 2019;16(11):675-89.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-019-0230-2

Bueno Garcia Reyes P, Hashim H. Mesh complications: best practice in diagnosis and treatment. Ther Adv Urol, 2020;12:1756287220942993.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287220942993

Liang R, Knight K, Abramowitch S, Moalli PA. Exploring the basic science of prolapse meshes. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2016;28(5):413-9.

https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000313

Knight KM, King GE, Palcsey SL, Suda A, Liang R, Moalli PA. Mesh deformation: A mechanism underlying polypropylene prolapse mesh complications in vivo. Acta Biomater, 2022;148:323-35.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2022.05.051

Ng-Stollmann N, Fünfgeld C, Gabriel B, Niesel A. The international discussion and the new regulations concerning transvaginal mesh implants in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J, 2020;31(10):1997-2002.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04407-0

Halpern-Elenskaia K, Umek W, Bodner-Adler B, Hanzal E. Anterior colporrhaphy: a standard operation? Systematic review of the technical aspects of a common procedure in randomized controlled trials. Int Urogynecol J, 2018;29(6):781-8.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3510-5

Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, Wu N, Pashos CL, Clemens JQ, Anger JT. Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol, 2013;122:981-7.

https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a8a5e4

Ko KJ, Lee KS. Current surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: strategies for the improvement of surgical outcomes. Investig Clin Urol, 2019;60(6):413-24.

https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2019.60.6.413

Tsui WL, Ding DC. Anterior colporrhaphy and paravaginal repair for anterior compartment prolapse: a review. Medicina (Kaunas), 2024;60(11):1865.

https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60111865

de Tayrac R, Cosson M, Panel L, Compan C, Zemmache MZ, Bouvet S, et al. Urinary and sexual impact of pelvic reconstructive surgery for genital prolapse by surgical route. A randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J, 2022;33(7):2021-30.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-05071-8

Falconer C, Altman D, Poutakidis G, Rahkola-Soisalo P, Mikkola T, Morcos E. Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2021;303(1):135-42.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05764-3

Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. International Braz J Urol, 2011;37(5):675.

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-55382011000500028

Ek M, Tegerstedt G, Falconer C, Kjaeldgaard A, Rezapour M, Rudnicki M, et al. Urodynamic assessment of anterior vaginal wall surgery: A randomized comparison between colporraphy and transvaginal mesh. Neurourol Urodyn, 2010;29(4):527-31.

https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20811

Kaya AE, Sukgen G. Comparison of anterior colporrhaphy and repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. 2018; Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327344758

Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J, 2011;22(11):1445-57.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1542-9

Ellington DR, Richter HE. The role of vaginal mesh procedures in pelvic organ prolapse surgery in view of complication risk. Obstet Gynecol Int, 2013;2013:1-7.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/356960