A multicenter prospective trial evaluating fetal bovine dermal graft (Xenform® Matrix) for pelvic reconstructive surgery
Howard B Goldstein, Joseph Maccarone, Martin J Naughton, Oscar A Aguirre, Rakesh C Patel, Howard B Goldstein, Joseph Maccarone, Martin J Naughton, Oscar A Aguirre, Rakesh C Patel
Abstract
Background: A prospective multicenter clinical study was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bovine dermal graft (Xenform® Matrix, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) during vaginal reconstructive surgery.
Methods: Forty-five women with ICS stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse (POP) were enrolled at 4 centers. POP-Q, pelvic floor function (PFDI-20), sexual function (PISQ-12), and patient satisfaction tools were used to assess subjects at baseline, and at 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6 and 12 months post surgery. The significance of symptom score changes at 6 months and 1 year were determined by the t-test for paired data. Forty-three of the 45 patients completed the 12 month study.
Results: The majority of the subjects had cystocele (98%) and/or rectocele (84%) defects at study entry. At 12 months, 74% of the defects had improved to a stage 0 or 1. Mean PFDI-20 scores improved by 72% (p < 0.001) at 12 months, and PISQ-12 scores were maintained during the follow-up period indicating no decline in sexual function. Three subjects experienced one serious adverse event each; one of the adverse events (constipation) was deemed by the study physician to be unrelated to Xenform®. One subject had severe pyelonephritis resulting in dialysis. This subject had a previous history of pyelonephritis, sepsis and acute renal failure. The third subject had a reported recurrent cystocele of moderate severity, possibly related to the device. No graft related erosions or pain lasting more than 30 days were reported. No subjects withdrew due to an adverse event.
Conclusion: This study is the first to investigate the use of Xenform® Matrix in vaginal reconstructive surgery among patients with POP. Significant improvement was maintained at 12 months utilizing both objective and subjective assessment tools, confirming the safety and efficacy of this material in vaginal surgery.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01244165.
References
- Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–506. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6.
- Birch C. The use of prosthetics in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;19:979–991. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2005.08.013.
- Weber AM, Richter HE. Pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:615634. doi: 10.1097/.
- Silva WA, Karram MM. Scientific basis for use of grafts during vaginal reconstructive procedures. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:519–529. doi: 10.1097/01.gco.0000180156.64879.00.
- Karlovsky ME, Thakre AA, Rastinehad A, Kushner L, Badlani GH. Biomaterials for pelvic floor reconstruction. Urology. 2005;66:469–475. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.03.006.
- Zerris V, James KS, Roberts JB, Bell E, Heilman CB. Repair of the dura mater with Processed Collagen Devices. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater. 2007;83B:580–588. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.30831.
- Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI 20 and PFIQ 7) Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:103–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025.
- Rogers RG, Coates KW, KammererDoak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C. A short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ 12) Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14:164–168. doi: 10.1007/s00192-003-1063-2. discussion 8.
- Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith ARB. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1017.
- Guerette NL, Peterson TV, Aguirre OA, Vandrie DM, Biller DH, Davila GW. Anterior repair with or without collagen matrix reinforcement: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:59–65.
- Rouach Y, Sebe P, Barouk JD, Thibault P, Haab F. [Medium-term results of grade 3 and 4 cystocele repair by porcine xenograft matrix (pelvicol)] Prog Urol. 2007;17:850–854.
- Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1762–1771. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.07.026.
- Murphy M. Clinical practice guidelines on vaginal graft use from the society of gynecologic surgeons. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1123–1130. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318189a8cc.
- Sung VW, Rogers RG, Schaffer JI, Balk EM, Uhlig K, Lau J, Abed H, Wheeler TL, Morrill MY, Clemons JL, Rahn DD, Lukban JC, Lowenstein L, Kenton K, Young SB. Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1131–1142. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181898ba9.
- Altman D, Mellgren A, Blomgren B, Lopez A, Zetterstrom J, Nordenstam J, Falconer C. Clinical and histological safety assessment of rectocele repair using collagen mesh. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:995–1000.
- Handel LN, Frenkl TL, Kim YH. Results of cystocele repair: a comparison of traditional anterior colporrhaphy, polypropylene mesh and porcine dermis. J Urol. 2007;178:153–156. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.041.
- Leboeuf L, Miles RA, Kim SS, Gousse AE. Grade 4 cystocele repair using four-defect repair and porcine xenograft acellular matrix (Pelvicol): outcome measures using SEAPI. Urology. 2004;64:282–286. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.044.
- Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F, Magatti F, Riva D, Kocjancic E. Porcine skin collagen implants to prevent anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence: a multicenter, randomized study. J Urol. 2007;177:192–195. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.100.
- Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, Winkler HA, Tomezsko J, Culligan PJ, Goldberg R. Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:1357–1362. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.115118.
Source: PubMed