BACKGROUND: In spite of rapid growth in the use of vaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery, there are few reports on the long-term efficacy and safety of mesh-augmented repairs. AIMS: To compare the long-term outcomes of modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) versus traditional anterior-posterior colporrhaphy (APC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved 158 women who underwent surgical management of prolapse with MPFR (n = 84) or APC (n = 74) in the period between January 2007 and June 2008. 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 (χ(2) test). RESULTS: Anatomical success rate for MPFR and APC was 88.1 versus 64.9% (P = 0.001), with a median follow-up of 55 versus 56 months (range 49-66 months, P = 0.341). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and a greater improvement was seen in MPFR group than in APC group (P = 0.013). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mesh erosion rate was 3.6%. CONCLUSION: Modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh had better anatomical and functional outcomes than APC at 4-5 years postoperation, as an alternative, cheap and effective treatment option to mesh kits for the management of POP.
BACKGROUND: In spite of rapid growth in the use of vaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery, there are few reports on the long-term efficacy and safety of mesh-augmented repairs. AIMS: To compare the long-term outcomes of modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) versus traditional anterior-posterior colporrhaphy (APC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved 158 women who underwent surgical management of prolapse with MPFR (n = 84) or APC (n = 74) in the period between January 2007 and June 2008. 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 (χ(2) test). RESULTS: Anatomical success rate for MPFR and APC was 88.1 versus 64.9% (P = 0.001), with a median follow-up of 55 versus 56 months (range 49-66 months, P = 0.341). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and a greater improvement was seen in MPFR group than in APC group (P = 0.013). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mesh erosion rate was 3.6%. CONCLUSION: Modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh had better anatomical and functional outcomes than APC at 4-5 years postoperation, as an alternative, cheap and effective treatment option to mesh kits for the management of POP.