OBJECTIVE: To compare midterm clinical outcome using modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) vs Prolift devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). STUDY DESIGN: This prospective observational cohort study involved 223 women with POP stages III-IV who were assigned to either MPFR (n=131) or Prolift device (n=92). Outcomes were analyzed at 6 and 12 months and the last follow-up visit postoperatively. Main outcome measures included pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement, Short Form-20 Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) questionnaires, perioperative outcomes, complications, and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. Statistical analysis included comparison of means (Wilcoxon test or Student's t-test) and proportions (Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis was carried out using Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: At follow-up (median, 36 months; range, 17-58 months), anatomic success for MPFR and Prolift was 87.07% and 93.41%, respectively (P=0.1339). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and PFDI-20 scores were lower in the Prolift group than the MPFR group (P=0.03). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups and the prevalence of urinary symptoms decreased postoperatively in both groups. The cost of operation, however, was RMB ¥11,882.86 yuan for MPFR and ¥23,617.59yuan for Prolift (P=0.00). CONCLUSIONS: MPFR and Prolift had comparable anatomic outcomes, Prolift had better functional outcomes than MPFR, but MPFR is much cheaper than Prolift. MPFR is an alternative, cheap and effective surgical treatment option to mesh-kits for the management for POP.
OBJECTIVE: To compare midterm clinical outcome using modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) vs Prolift devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). STUDY DESIGN: This prospective observational cohort study involved 223 women with POP stages III-IV who were assigned to either MPFR (n=131) or Prolift device (n=92). Outcomes were analyzed at 6 and 12 months and the last follow-up visit postoperatively. Main outcome measures included pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement, Short Form-20 Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) questionnaires, perioperative outcomes, complications, and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. Statistical analysis included comparison of means (Wilcoxon test or Student's t-test) and proportions (Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis was carried out using Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: At follow-up (median, 36 months; range, 17-58 months), anatomic success for MPFR and Prolift was 87.07% and 93.41%, respectively (P=0.1339). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and PFDI-20 scores were lower in the Prolift group than the MPFR group (P=0.03). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups and the prevalence of urinary symptoms decreased postoperatively in both groups. The cost of operation, however, was RMB ¥11,882.86 yuan for MPFR and ¥23,617.59yuan for Prolift (P=0.00). CONCLUSIONS: MPFR and Prolift had comparable anatomic outcomes, Prolift had better functional outcomes than MPFR, but MPFR is much cheaper than Prolift. MPFR is an alternative, cheap and effective surgical treatment option to mesh-kits for the management for POP.