title: How to prevent mesh erosion in transobturator Tension-Free Incontinence Cystocoele Treatment (TICT): a comparative survey.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Tension-Free Incontinence Cystocoele Treatment (TICT) was introduced by Leanza-Gasbarro-Caschetto in 2001, on the basis of experimental and clinical investigations to obtain a physiologic mechanism of closure and opening of the urethra in the event of genuine stress urinary incontinence (S.U.I.) and cistocoele. TICT took origin from the previous retropubic tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) based on the integral theory according which mid-urethra has a main role for urinary continence but differs in that the former restores the anatomy and physiology of the entire anterior compartment. Simultaneously Delorme in 2001 spread the TOT (Trans-Obturator Tape) technique, emphasizing the needle passage across the obturator foramen which represents a new and less invasive route in comparison with the retropubic one. Trans-obturator TICT exploits the advantages of TOT, adding the anatomical repair of bladder prolapse. Introduction of mesh for treatment of pelvic defects gives a lower rate of recurrence, but introduces new complications due to the extraneous materials, among which the most common is represented by mesh erosion. At present the rate of mesh erosion reported is 4.7% in the TOT. Aim of our survey was to verify a technique allowing post-operative erosion prevention.
  
  
  METHODS
  230 women with urodynamic stress incontinence and cystocoele after diagnostic phase were allocated to 2 treatment groups (A end B-group), with open alternative method. Agroup women underwent transobturator TICT procedure after preparation of anterior compartment by means of a transversal incision taking care to preserve the integrity of the vaginal skin in the site where the mesh would be allocated. Conversely, B-group transobturator TICT was carried out in a classical way, through a longitudinal incision of anterior vaginal skin and suturing after placing the mesh. Each of the two groups was initially constituted by 115 subjects. There were 14 preoperative dropouts among which 6 (115-6=109) in A-group and 8 (115-8=107) in B-group and, after, 16 postoperative dropouts including 7 (109-7=102) in the former and 9 (107-9=98) in the latter. Other pelvic defects were solved during the same operation for a complete repair of pelvic floor.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A-group: subjectively SUI was cured in 87/102 (85.3%) objectively, SUI was cured in 88/102 (86.3%) of patients; cystocoele in 87/102 (85.3%). B-group: subjectively SUI was cured in 86/98 (87.7%) and objectively in 87/98 (88.8%) of patients; cystocoele was solved in 86/98 (87.7%). Between the two groups both anti-incontinence end cystocoele treatment was superimposable (p value > 0.05). Nevertheless regarding mesh erosion, a percentage of 5.1% (5/98) was found among B-group while none among A-group patients where integrity of vaginal skin beneath the mesh was preserved.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Integrity of the vagina beneath the mesh is the right.key to prevent ad externum mesh erosion.
authors.forename: V
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Leanza
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Zanghì
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Vecchio
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Leanza
mesh_terms: D052858:Cystocele / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D053825:Suburethral Slings; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014550:Urinary Incontinence, Stress / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D014621:Vagina / Q000601:surgery
references.citation: Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Nov;290(5):913-7
references.pmid: 24788964
references.citation: Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2014 Oct;45(5):588-95
references.pmid: 24338269
references.citation: Chin Med J (Engl). 2015 Feb 5;128(3):295-300
references.pmid: 25635422
references.citation: Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Aug;25(8):1133-5
references.pmid: 24667983
references.citation: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(4):464-8
references.pmid: 18382875
references.citation: Minerva Ginecol. 2008 Feb;60(1):91-4
references.pmid: 18277356
references.citation: Case Rep Oncol. 2014 May 14;7(2):301-5
references.pmid: 24932171
references.citation: Minerva Ginecol. 2014 Jun;66(3):299-301
references.pmid: 24971785
references.citation: Psychol Trauma. 2015 Jul;7(4):340-7
references.pmid: 26147519
references.citation: G Chir. 2013 Nov-Dec;34(11-12):332-6
references.pmid: 24342163
references.citation: G Chir. 2014 Jan-Feb;35(1-2):36-41
references.pmid: 24690339
references.citation: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Jun;177:146-50
references.pmid: 24793930
references.citation: J Child Sex Abus. 2014;23(7):853-60
references.pmid: 25010088
references.citation: G Chir. 2014 Mar-Apr;35(3-4):80-4
references.pmid: 24841685
references.citation: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1996;7(2):81-5; discussion 85-6
references.pmid: 8798092
references.citation: Minerva Ginecol. 2014 Jun;66(3):303-7
references.pmid: 24971786
references.citation: Minerva Ginecol. 2014 Jun;66(3):309-12
references.pmid: 24971787
references.citation: Prog Urol. 2001 Dec;11(6):1306-13
references.pmid: 11859672