International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 1053–1057 | Cite as

A long-term review of posterior colporrhaphy with Vypro 2 mesh

  • Yik Nyok Lim
  • Reinhold Muller
  • Audrey Corstiaans
  • Sarah Hitchins
  • Christopher Barry
  • Ajay Rane
Original Article


The objective is to study the long-term outcomes of posterior colporrhaphy with composite polyglactin 910-polypropylene mesh (Vypro 2, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) utilizing an overlay technique. Seventy-eight patients involved in our previous study were contacted 3 years after their initial operation for follow-up (Lim YN, Rane A, Muller R, Int Urogynecol J 16:126–131, 2005). Thirty-seven (47%) returned for follow-up and completed a standardized questionnaire survey, whereas a further 16 (20%) returned their postal questionnaires. Mean age was 61.3 (SD 10.8) years, and follow-up was 35.7 (SD 4.5) months. There were statistically significant improvements in vaginal lump sensation and constipation (p < 0.001) but no differences with defecatory difficulties or dyspareunia. De novo dyspareunia was reported in 27%. On examination, the incidences of mesh vaginal erosion and rectocele recurrence were 30% and 22%, respectively. It appears that posterior colporrhaphy incorporating Vypro 2 mesh with an overlay method is associated with unacceptably high incidence of complications.


Complications Dyspareunia Mesh erosion Polypropylene Posterior vaginal prolapse 


  1. 1.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 104:579–585Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scott NW, McCormack K, Graham P, Go PM, Ross SJ, Grant AM (2002) Open mesh versus non-mesh for repair of femoral and inguinal hernia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD002197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lim YN, Rane A, Muller R (2005) An ambispective observational study in the safety and efficacy of posterior colporrhaphy with composite Vicryl-Prolene mesh. Int Urogynecol J 16:126–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parker MC, Phillips RK (1993) Repair of rectocele using Marlex mesh. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 75(3):193–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watson SJ, Loder PB, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Kamm MA, Phillips RK (1996) Transperineal repair of symptomatic rectocele with Marlex mesh: a clinical, physiological and radiologic assessment of treatment. J Am Coll Surg 183:247–261Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dwyer PL, O’Reilly BA (2004) Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse with Atrium polypropylene mesh. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 111:831–836Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Milani R, Salvatore S, Soligo M, Pifarotti P, Meschia M, Cortese M (2005) Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 112:107–111Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Tayrac R, Picone O, Chauveaud-Lambling A, Frenandez H (2006) A 2-year anatomical and functional assessment of transvaginal rectocele repair using a polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J 17:100–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glavind K, Sander P (2004) Erosion, defective healing and extrusion after tension-free urethropexy for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 15:179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baessler K, Hewson A, Tunn R, Schuessler B, Maher CF (2005) Severe mesh complications following intravaginal slingplasty. Obstet Gynecol 106(4):713–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rechberger T, Rzezniczuk K, Skorupski P et al (2003) A randomized comparison between monofilament and multifilament tapes for stress incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J 14:432–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim YN, Muller R, Corstiaans A, Dietz HP, Barry C, Rane A (2005) Suburethral slingplasty evaluation study in north Queensland: The SUSPEND Trial. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol 45:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Achtari C, Hiscock R, O’Reilly BA, Scherlitz L, Dwyer PL (2005) Risk factors for mesh erosion after transvaginal surgery using polypropylene (Atrium) or composite polypropylene/polyglactin 910 (Vypro 2) mesh. Int Urogynecol J 16:389–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, Addison WA, Bump RC (1998) An anatomic and functional assessment of the discrete defect rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179:1451–1457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Porter WE, Steele A, Walsh P, Kohli N, Karram M (1999) The anatomic and functional outcomes of defect-specific rectocele repairs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:1353–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L (1999) Outcome after rectovaginal fascia reattachment for rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:1360–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maher C, Qatawneh A, Baessler K, Schutler P (2004) Midline fascial plication for repair of rectocele and obstructed defecation. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):685–689PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yik Nyok Lim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Reinhold Muller
    • 3
  • Audrey Corstiaans
    • 4
  • Sarah Hitchins
    • 5
  • Christopher Barry
    • 5
  • Ajay Rane
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of UrogynecologyMercy Hospital for WomenMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Monash Medical CentreMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Public HealthJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  4. 4.Townsville HospitalTownsvilleAustralia
  5. 5.James Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations