Outcome of Prolift mesh repair in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and its effect on lower urinary tract symptoms: 5-year retrospective case study
Article first published online: 28 MAY 2012
© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research © 2012 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
Volume 39, Issue 1, pages 243–249, January 2013
How to Cite
Gad, N., Duvvuru, A. and Burchgart, B. (2013), Outcome of Prolift mesh repair in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and its effect on lower urinary tract symptoms: 5-year retrospective case study. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 39: 243–249. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2012.01888.x
- Issue published online: 7 JAN 2013
- Article first published online: 28 MAY 2012
- Received: September 30 2011.; Accepted: February 3 2012.
- pelvic organ prolapse;
- pelvic reconstructive surgery;
- stress urinary incontinence;
- urinary symptom
Aim: To assess the outcome of the Prolift Gynecare (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) mesh repair in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. This includes the anatomical success, complication rate and effect on associated lower urinary tract symptoms.
Material and Methods: Retrospective case analysis of the above outcomes of 41 Prolift mesh repairs performed on 40 women over a 5-year period by a single surgeon in a private hospital in Australia.
Results: Successful anatomical correction and bulge symptom resolution were observed in 100% (2/2), 91.6% (11/12) and 100% (27/27) of anterior, posterior and total Prolift, respectively. Prolapse in a non-treated compartment occurred in one woman. Two patients developed postoperative hematomas requiring surgical evacuation; one of whom developed urinary retention for 2 weeks. Preoperative urinary symptoms were reported in 35/40 (92%) of women, 8 of whom reported only urge symptoms and experienced complete resolution after Prolift. Resolution of stress urinary incontinence in women who had urodynamic stress incontinence with and without urge symptoms was reported in 60% (12/20) and 20% (1/5), respectively. This represented 62.5% (10/16) and 33.3% (3/9) of women who had total Prolift and posterior Prolift respectively. Average follow-up periods were 7 and 39 weeks in 38 and 18 women, respectively.
Conclusion: This study shows that Prolift procedure is safe and effective in women with severe pelvic organ prolapse with resolution of most of the bulge and urinary urge symptoms. Total Prolift was effective in the treatment of associated mixed urinary incontinence.