loading page

Prospective international multicenter pelvic floor study: follow-up results and clinical findings combining pectopexy and native tissue repair
  • +10
  • Guenter Karl Noé,
  • Sven Schiermeier,
  • Thomas Papathemelis,
  • Ulrich Fuellers,
  • Hans Harald Altmann,
  • Alexander Khuyakov,
  • Stefan Borowski,
  • Pawel Morawski,
  • Markus Gantert,
  • Bart DeVree,
  • Zbignev Tkacz,
  • Rodrigo Ugarteburu,
  • Michael Anapolski
Guenter Karl Noé
University Witten Herdecke Faculty of Medicine

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Sven Schiermeier
University of Witten/Herdecke
Author Profile
Thomas Papathemelis
Klinikum St Marien Amberg
Author Profile
Ulrich Fuellers
GTK Kreeld
Author Profile
Hans Harald Altmann
Klinikum Coburg GmbH
Author Profile
Alexander Khuyakov
GTK Krefeld
Author Profile
Stefan Borowski
Gesundheit Nord gGmbH Klinikverbund Bremen
Author Profile
Pawel Morawski
HELIOS Klinikum Bad Saarow
Author Profile
Markus Gantert
St. Franziskus-Hospital Ahlen
Author Profile
Bart DeVree
Author Profile
Zbignev Tkacz
NHS Tayside
Author Profile
Rodrigo Ugarteburu
Clínica Asturias
Author Profile
Michael Anapolski
University of Witten/Herdecke
Author Profile


Objective: To reduce mesh use for prolapse repair, practice has shifted towards traditional native tissue. Combining native tissue repair with sufficient apical repair could allow effective treatment. Pectopexy showed in a randomized trial focusing on combining traditional native tissue repair with pectopexy or sacrocolpopexy no association with new risks for patients. The short follow-up of this international multicenter study is presented in this article. Design, Setting, and Population: Eleven clinics and 13 surgeons in four European counties participated in the study. All surgeons committed to using a strict standard for pectopexy, using a pre-tailored mesh (PVDF PRP 3×15 Dynamesh solely for apical repair. Methode: Data were independently collected for 14 months on a secured server; 501 surgeries were documented and evaluated and 264 (52.7%) patients returned for physical examination for follow-up. Main Outcome and Results: The mean follow-up time was 15 months, and the overall success rate for apical repair was 96.9%. A satisfaction score was positively rated in 95.5% of the patients. A positive general recommendation was provided by 95.1% of the patients. Pelvic pressure was reduced in 95.2%, pain was reduced in 98.0%, and urgency was reduced in 86.0%.No major de novo problems occurred in the follow-up. Conclusion: Clinical routine pectopexy and concomitant surgery, mainly using native tissue approaches, resulted in high satisfaction rates and good clinical findings. The procedure can also be recommended for general use by general uro-gynecological practitioners with experience in laparoscopy. Funding: FEG Textieltechnik; Aachen Keywords: prolapse; pelvic floor; laparoscopy; native tissue, pectopexy