Factors that affect outcomes of prolapse repair using single-incision vaginal mesh procedures

AimsSingle-incision vaginal mesh (SIVM) procedures for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) differed in mesh fabrication and implantation that may affect treatment outcomes. We aim to evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of two SIVM procedures, and explore factors that may have associations with surgical effectiveness. MethodsOur data of using two SIVM procedures for a total (anterior and posterior) vaginal mesh repair were studied. Patients who had stage 2 POP and underwent either Elevate (n=85) using anchored, lightweight meshes or Prosima procedures (n=95) using non-anchored, original meshes were assessed. A detailed comparison of 1 year outcomes was made. ResultsOf the 180 patients, 172 (95.6%) attended the 1-year follow-up. Demographic data were similar between groups except a higher average age (64.5 vs 60.4, P=0.001) was noted in the Elevate (n=84) group compared to the Prosima (n=88) group. Surgical results were also similar except a significantly higher objective cure (POP stage 1) rate (89.3% vs 78.4%, P=0.042) was noted in the Elevate group. The safety profile favored Elevate with a lower, but not statistically significant, rate (4.7% vs 12.5%, P=0.106) of vaginal mesh exposure. After a statistical analysis, we found anatomic recurrence (POP stage 2) after the SIVM procedures had strong (P<0.05) associations with early surgical cases, Prosima procedure, advanced cystocele (Ba>+3cm), and prior prolapse repair, respectively. ConclusionsBeyond a learning curve, Elevate performed better than Prosima in POP repair regarding surgical effectiveness. Meanwhile, several predisposing factors that may affect recurrence after SIVM procedures were found.