Morbidity and functional mid-term outcomes using the Prolift pelvic floor repair systems

Authors

  • Sébastien Kozal 1 Department of Urology and Andrology. Robert Debré, University Hospital, Reims, France.
  • Thomas Ripert 1Department of Urology and Andrology. Robert Debré, University Hospital, Reims, France. 2 Department of Urology and Andrology, Polyclinic Courlancy, Reims, France.
  • Younes Bayoud 1 Department of Urology and Andrology. Robert Debré, University Hospital, Reims, France.
  • Johan Menard 1 Department of Urology and Andrology. Robert Debré, University Hospital, Reims, France.
  • Ioannis Nicolacopoulos 3 Department of Urology, Manchester General Hospital, Charleville, France.
  • Laurence Bednarzyck 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Manchester General Hospital, Charleville, France.
  • Frederic Staerman 1 Department of Urology and Andrology. Robert Debré, University Hospital, Reims, France. 5 Departement of Urology and Andrology, Polyclinic Les Bleuets, Reims, France.
  • Stéphane Larre 1 Department of Urology and Andrology. Robert Debré, University Hospital, Reims, France.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2022

Keywords:

Pelvic organ prolapse repair, Prolift™, Morbidity, Outcomes, Mesh, Vaginal surgery

Abstract

Introduction: We assess midterm morbidity and functional outcomes using the Prolift (Gynecare/Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) system and identify potential related risk factors. The Prolift mesh system to treat genital prolapse was introduced in 2005. It was withdrawn from the market in early 2013 after rising doubts about safety.

Methods: Over a 7-year period, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 112 consecutive patients who underwent the Prolift procedure since 2006. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, anatomical and functional outcomes were recorded.

Results: The median follow-up was 49.5 months (range: 16-85). The mean age was 64.7 ± 10.9 years (range: 40-86). Of the 112 patients, 74 patients had stage 3 (66.1%) and 8 patients had stage 4 (7.14%) vaginal prolapse. Prolift surgery was performed for prolapse recurrence for 26 patients (23.2%). Total mesh was used in 32 patients (29%), an isolated anterior mesh in 57 patients (51%) and an isolated posterior mesh in 23 patients (21%). Concomitant surgical procedures were performed for 44 patients (39.3%). Overall, 72% (18/25) of the complications were managed medically. We reported a failure rate of 8% (n = 9) occurring after a median follow-up of 9.5 months (range: 1-45). Among the 64 patients who had preoperative sexual activity (57.1%), de novo dyspareunia occurred in 9 patients (16.07%). We extracted predictive factors concerning failure, complications and sexuality.

Conclusion: Despite its market withdrawal, the Prolift system was associated with good midterm anatomic outcomes and few severe complications. Long-term follow-up data are still lacking, but surgeons and patients may be reassured.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2014-09-09

How to Cite

Kozal, S., Ripert, T., Bayoud, Y., Menard, J., Nicolacopoulos, I., Bednarzyck, L., Staerman, F., & Larre, S. (2014). Morbidity and functional mid-term outcomes using the Prolift pelvic floor repair systems. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 8(9-10), e605–9. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2022

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 9-10 (2014): CUAJ September

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.