A randomized controlled trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Lamblin, G., Van-Nieuwenhuyse, A., Chabert, P. et al. Int Urogynecol J (2014) 25: 961. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2344-7
- 492 Views
Introduction and hypothesis
Our aim was to compare anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh.
This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in a teaching hospital. Sixty-eight women with stage ≥3 anterior vaginal wall prolapse according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system were assessed, randomized, and analyzed. Patients were randomized to anterior colporrhaphy with vaginal colposuspension (n = 35) or transvaginal mesh (n = 33). Primary outcome was objective cure rate of the anterior vaginal wall, defined as POP-Q ≤1 at 2 years. Secondary outcomes were functional results, quality-of-life (QoL) scores, mesh-related morbidity, and onset of urinary incontinence.
The anatomical result for point Ba was significantly better at 2 years in the mesh group (−2.8 cm) than in the colposuspension group (−2.4 cm) (p = 0.02). Concerning POP-Q stages, the anatomical success rate at 2 years was 84.4 % for colposuspension and 100 % for mesh (p = 0.05). There were 5 anatomic recurrences (15.6 %) in the colposuspension group. The erosion rate was 6 % (n = 2). No significant difference was noted regarding minor complications. Analysis of QoL questionnaires showed overall improvement in both groups, with no significant difference between them.
The vaginal colposuspension technique of anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair gave good anatomical and functional results at 2 years. Transobturator vaginal mesh gave better 2-year anatomical results than vaginal colposuspension, with overall improvement in QoL in both groups.