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

Abstract

Background: 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.

Objective: To compare the rate of complications, and functional and anatomical outcomes between LS and TVM.

Design, setting, and participants: 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.

Intervention: Synthetic nonabsorbable mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space, sutured to the promontory (LS) or maintained by arms through pelvic ligaments (TVM).

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: 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.

Results and limitations: 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).

Conclusions: 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.

Patient summary: 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.

Keywords: Complications; Cystocele; Genital prolapse; Mesh; Randomized controlled trial; Surgery.