Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare long-term effects of high-volume surgery at a single-center to multicenter use when using a mesh-capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair. Methods Five years after surgery 101 (88%) at the single center were compared with 164 (81.2%) in the multicenter trial. Outcome measurements included clinical examination, prolapse-specific symptom questionnaires [Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire—short form (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)] and pain estimation by VAS (0–10). Results Optimal apical segment outcome was 95% in the single- compared to 83.3% in the multicenter study ( p < 0.001). POP recurrence in the anterior and posterior walls (POP-Q, Ba and Bp ≥ 0) was more common at the multicenter as compared to the single center [(19.8% vs 5.4%) and (26% vs 2.7%), ( p < 0.001)]. Reoperations for POP and mesh-related complications were more frequent in the multicenter study [31/202 (15.3%) vs 7/116 (6.1%), p < 0.001]. Total PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 scores were comparable between the cohorts. There were no significant differences in overall pain scores in-between the cohorts during follow-up. At the single center, 1/81 patients (1.2%) had VAS 7/10, i.e. severe pain, as compared to 3/131 (2.3%) in the multicenter study ( p = 0.277). Conclusions Despite the high objective and subjective long-term effectiveness of the procedure in both regular use, and at a high-volume center, centralizing the use of a standardized capturing-device guided transvaginal mesh for POP repair reduced secondary interventions by more than half.