Preoperative predictors and a prediction score for perception of improvement after mesh prolapse surgery

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery using a mesh has a complication rate of 26%, and an estimated 10% of those operated on do not consider it brings improvement. The objective of this study was to identify preoperative predictors of improvement after POP repair with mesh to develop a predictive score.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of the randomized multicenter trial PROSPERE, which compared morbidity after prolapse repair with mesh according to the vaginal or laparoscopic approach. Improved women [PGI-I score at 1-year follow-up = 1 (much better) or 2 (better)] were compared with unimproved women. Two hundred fifty-five women were included to derive the prediction score based on multiple logistic regression. An internal validation by bootstrapping estimated the unbiased performance of the model.

Results

Criteria independently related to improvement were: (1) cystocele stage > II [OR: 2.93 95% CI (1.22–7.04), p = 0.015]; (2) preoperative expectation related to bulge symptom improvement [OR: 2.57 95% CI (1.07–6.04), p = 0.031] and (3) absence of chronic pelvic pain [OR: 4.55 95% CI (1.77–11.46), p = 0.001]. A score (scored from 0 to 11) was constructed from the aOR of the predictive model: the ROC-AUC of the score was 0.75, and a score ≥ 9 predicted a 97% chance of improvement (95% CI 92–99), with a specificity of 85% (95% CI 68–94). The ROC-AUC corrected for optimism by the bootstrap procedure was 0.70.

Conclusions

This score could be used by surgeons in preoperative counseling of women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Bump RC, Norton PA. Epidemiology and natural history of pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 1998;25(4):723–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Smith FJ, Holman CDJ, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Maher CF, Baessler KK, Barber MD, Cheon C, Consten ECJ, Cooper KG, et al. Summary: 2017 international consultation on incontinence evidence-based surgical pathway for pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000591. Volume Publish Ahead of Print-Issue-p.

  4. 4.

    Lucot J-P, Cosson M, Bader G, Debodinance P, Akladios C, Salet-Lizée D, et al. Safety of vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh Sacropexy for cystocele repair: results of the prosthetic pelvic floor repair randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):167–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    de Landsheere L, Ismail S, Lucot J-P, Deken V, Foidart J-M, Cosson M. Surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair: retrospective single-center study including 524 patients with 3 years’ median follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):83.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pécheux O, Giraudet G, Drumez E, Di Serio M, Estelle J-D-G, De Landsheere L, et al. Long-term (8.5 years) analysis of the type and rate of reoperation after transvaginal mesh repair (Prolift®) in 349 patients. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;232:33–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wagner L, Chevrot A, Llinares E, Costa P, Droupy S. Long-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a prospective study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02124-2.

  8. 8.

    Le Normand L, Cosson M, Cour F, Deffieux X, Donon L, Ferry P, et al. Clinical practice guidelines: synthesis of the guidelines for the surgical treatment of primary pelvic organ prolapse in women by the AFU, CNGOF, SIFUD-PP, SNFCP, and SCGP. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;46(5):387–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Duraes M, Panel L, Cornille A, Courtieu C. Long-term follow-up of patients treated by transvaginal mesh repair for anterior prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;230:124–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bui C, Ballester M, Chéreau E, Guillo E, Daraï E. Functional results and quality of life of laparoscopic promontofixation in the cure of genital prolapse. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertil. 2010;38(10):563–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bacle J, Papatsoris AG, Bigot P, Azzouzi A-R, Brychaet P-E, Piussan J, et al. Laparoscopic promontofixation for pelvic organ prolapse: a 10-year single center experience in a series of 501 patients. Int J Urol. 2011;18(12):821–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Milani AL, Damoiseaux A, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, Withagen MIJ. Long-term outcome of vaginal mesh or native tissue in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):847–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. A longitudinal study of patient and surgeon goal achievement 2 years after surgery following pelvic floor dysfunction surgery. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;117(12):1504–11.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    de Tayrac R, Deval B, Fernandez H, Marès P. Mapi research institute. [development of a linguistically validated French version of two short-form, condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7)]. J Gynécologie Obstétrique. Biol Reprod. 2007;36(8):738–48.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wein AJ. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2005;173(3):908–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Altomare DF, Spazzafumo L, Rinaldi M, Dodi G, Ghiselli R, Piloni V. Set-up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defaecation syndrome. Color Dis. 2008;10(1):84–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, et al. The female sexual function index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther. 2000;26(2):191–208.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rockwood TH, Constantine ML, Adegoke O, Rogers RG, McDermott E, Davila GW, et al. The PISQ-IR: considerations in scale scoring and development. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(7):1105–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Chapron C, Barakat H, Fritel X, Dubuisson J-B, Bréart G, Fauconnier A. Presurgical diagnosis of posterior deep infiltrating endometriosis based on a standardized questionnaire. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(2):507–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Chapron C, Fauconnier A, Vieira M, Barakat H, Dousset B, Pansini V, et al. Anatomical distribution of deeply infiltrating endometriosis: surgical implications and proposition for a classification. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2003;18(1):157–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Fauconnier A, Dubuisson J-B, Foulot H, Deyrolles C, Sarrot F, Laveyssière M-N, et al. Mobile uterine retroversion is associated with dyspareunia and dysmenorrhea in an unselected population of women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127(2):252–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Collins GS. Transparent reporting of a multivariate prediction model for individual prognosis or development initiative. New guideline for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a multivariable clinical prediction model: the TRIPOD statement. Adv Anat Pathol. 2015;22(5):303–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Steyerberg EW. Clinical prediction models [internet]. New York: Springer; 2009. [cited 2017 May 7]. (Statistics for Biology and Health). Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-0-387-77244-8.

  29. 29.

    Demler OV, Pencina MJ, D’Agostino RB. Misuse of DeLong test to compare AUCs for nested models. Stat Med. 2012;31(23):2577–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Buckley RG, King KJ, Disney JD, Ambroz PK, Gorman JD, Klausen JH. Derivation of a clinical prediction model for the emergency department diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Acad Emerg Med Off J Soc Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5(10):951–60.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Miller TD, Hodge DO, Christian TF, Milavetz JJ, Bailey KR, Gibbons RJ. Effects of adjustment for referral bias on the sensitivity and specificity of single photon emission computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Am J Med. 2002;112(4):290–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sabbagh R, Mandron E, Piussan J, Brychaert PE, Tu LM. Long-term anatomical and functional results of laparoscopic promontofixation for pelvic organ prolapse. BJU Int. 2010;106(6):861–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Mourik SL, Martens JE, Aktas M. Uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse using robot assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: quality of life and technique. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165(1):122–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chloé Chattot.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

This research was supported by a grant from Institut de Recherche en Santé de la Femme (Women’s Health Research Institute).

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chattot, C., Deffieux, X., Lucot, J. et al. Preoperative predictors and a prediction score for perception of improvement after mesh prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 31, 1393–1400 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03953-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Genital prolapse
  • Cystocele
  • Surgery
  • Postoperative improvement
  • Counseling
  • Clinical prediction rule