Responsibility toward affordable healthcare: disposable versus reusable methods for pelvic floor repair

BACKGROUND: The adverse publicity surrounding the use of mesh for correction of pelvic organ prolapse has driven a renewed interest in native tissue repair. Established techniques used reusable instruments, while recent innovations have generally involved disposable equipment. Here, we compare outcomes between the two techniques used for sacrospinous ligament fixation for the correction of apical prolapse: Miya Hook (reusable) and Capio(®) (single-use) suturing devices. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of women undergoing vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy or hysteropexy was undertaken. The patients were assessed preoperatively and 1 year post-operatively. The primary outcomes were improvement in vaginal scores and patient-reported absence of a vaginal bulge. Secondary outcomes included impact on sexual function, quality of life, perioperative complications and apical recurrence. The cost of instruments, operative times and length of stay were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 133 women with advanced prolapse in the apical compartment underwent colpopexy or hysteropexy (63 using the reusable Miya Hook and 40 with the disposable Capio device). Mean follow-up was 16.9 months (SD 7.8) and 14 months (SD 3.1), respectively. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification staging between the two cohorts. Significant improvements in vaginal scores, sexual function and quality of life (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Vaginal Symptoms) were observed in both groups postoperatively (P<0.01). Both groups had low apical recurrence in the medium term (<3%). There were no significant differences in operative times or length of stay. The use of disposable equipment was associated with higher cost. CONCLUSION: Sacrospinous fixation using either the Miya Hook or the Capio device is equally effective for the management of apical prolapse. In the absence of clinical benefit, the choice of instrument should reflect the cost in a financially constrained health-sector environment.