International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 1925–1931 | Cite as

Operation for recurrent cystocele with anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh: patient reported outcomes

  • Emil Karl Nüssler
  • Susanne Greisen
  • Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel
  • Mats Löfgren
  • Karl Møller Bek
  • Marianne Glavind-KristensenEmail author
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to compare patient reported outcomes and complications after repair of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse in routine health care settings using standard anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh.


The study is based on prospective data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery. 286 women were operated on for recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse in 2008–2010; 157 women had an anterior colporrhaphy and 129 were operated on with a non-absorbable mesh. Pre-, and perioperative data were collected from doctors and patients. Patient reported outcomes were evaluated 2 months and 12 months after the operation.


After 12 months, the odds ratio (OR) of patient reported cure was 2.90 (1.34–6.31) after mesh implants compared with anterior colporrhaphy. Both patient- and doctor-reported complications were found more often in the mesh group. However, no differences in serious complications were found. Thus, an organ lesion was found in 2.3 % after mesh implant compared with 2.5 % after anterior colporrhaphy (p = 0.58). Two patients in the mesh group (1.2 %) were re-operated compared with 1 patient (0.6 %) in the anterior colporrhaphy group (p = 0.58). The infection rate was higher after mesh (8.5 %) than after anterior colporrhaphy (2.5 %; OR 3.19 ; 1.07–14.25).


Implantation of synthetic mesh during operation for recurrent cystocele more than doubled the cure rate, whereas no differences in serious complications were found between the groups. However, mesh increased the risk of infection.


Cystocele Colporrhaphy Non-absorbable mesh Patient reported outcome National register data 



This study was supported by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.

Conflicts of interest

Emil Nüssler is responsible for the register of prolapse surgery of the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery. Mats Löfgren is chairman for the National Register. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.


  1. 1.
    Samuelsson EC, Victor FT, Tibblin G, Svardsudd KF (1999) Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:299–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS (2008) Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:437–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber AM, Abrams P, Brubaker L, Cundiff G, Davis G, Dmochowski RR et al (2001) The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:178–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD004014Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R (2003) Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1261–1267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greisen S, Glavind-Kristensen M, Bek KM, Axelsen SM (2012) Subjective and objective results of anterior vaginal wall repair in an outpatient clinic: a 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 23:883–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM (2011) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J 22:1445–1457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R (2006) Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 12:559–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pakbaz M, Mogren I, Lofgren M (2010) Outcomes of cystocele repair surgery in relation to different anesthesia methods. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89:876–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tegerstedt G, Miedel A, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M (2005) A short-form questionnaire identified genital organ prolapse. J Clin Epidemiol 58:41–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ladfors MB, Lofgren ME, Gabriel B, Olsson JH (2002) Patient accept questionnaires integrated in clinical routine: a study by the Swedish National Register for Gynecological Surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81:437–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hannan EL (2008) Randomized clinical trials and observational studies: guidelines for assessing respective strengths and limitations. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 1:211–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guldberg R, Brostrom S, Hansen JK, Kaerlev L, Gradel KO, Norgard BM, et al (2012) The Danish urogynaecological database: establishment, completeness and validity. Int Urogynecol J. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1968-8 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ellerkmann RM, Cundiff GW, Melick CF, Nihira MA, Leffler K, Bent AE (2001) Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1332–1337, discussion 1337–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Swift SE, Tate SB, Nicholas J (2003) Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:372–377, discussion 377–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barber MD (2005) Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 48:648–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bradley CS, Nygaard IE (2005) Vaginal wall descensus and pelvic floor symptoms in older women. Obstet Gynecol 106:759–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tan JS, Lukacz ES, Menefee SA, Powell CR, Nager CW, San Diego Pelvic Floor Consortium (2005) Predictive value of prolapse symptoms: a large database study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:203–209, discussion 209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z et al (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114:600–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peterson TV, Karp DR, Aguilar VC, Davila GW (2010) Primary versus recurrent prolapse surgery: differences in outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 21:483–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C, Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:1826–1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:235.e1–235.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Skala C, Renezeder K, Albrich S, Puhl A, Laterza RM, Naumann G et al (2011) The IUGA/ICS classification of complications of prosthesis and graft insertion: a comparative experience in incontinence and prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22:1429–1435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lowman JK, Jones LA, Woodman PJ, Hale DS (2008) Does the Prolift system cause dyspareunia? Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:707.e1–707.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fayyad AM, North C, Reid FM, Smith AR (2011) Prospective study of anterior transobturator mesh kit (Prolift) for the management of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 22:157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emil Karl Nüssler
    • 1
  • Susanne Greisen
    • 2
  • Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel
    • 2
  • Mats Löfgren
    • 3
  • Karl Møller Bek
    • 2
  • Marianne Glavind-Kristensen
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Västerbottens County CouncilThe National Quality Register of Gynecological SurgeryUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyAarhus University HospitalAarhus NDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations