A randomized controlled trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh
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.
KeywordsAnterior colporrhaphy Pelvic organ prolapse Transvaginal mesh Vaginal surgery
- 1.De Boer TA, Slieker-Ten Hove MC, Burger CW, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME (2011) The prevalence and factors associated with previous surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and/or urinary incontinence in a cross-sectional study in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 158:343–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.FDA Safety Communication: Update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Issued on 13 July 2011. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed on 12 June 2012
- 10.De Tayrac R, Deval B, Fernandez H, Marès P (2007) Development of a linguistically validated French version of two short-form, condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). J Gynécol Obstét Biol Reprod 36(8):738–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Dargent D, Mathevet P, Mellier G (2002) Traitement chirurgical des prolapsus génitaux par la voie vaginale. Encycl. Méd. Chir. (Paris France) 41–80, 18pGoogle Scholar
- 12.PERIGEE TM (2004) Instructions for Use. American Medical Systems Minnetonka, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
- 13.Richter K, Dargent D (1986) Spinous fixation (vaginae fixatio sacrospinalis) in the treatment of vaginal prolapse after hysterectomy. J Gynécol Obstét Biol Reprod 15(8):1081–1088Google Scholar
- 14.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(3) 235: e1–8Google Scholar
- 28.De Tayrac R, Cornille A, Eglin G, Guilbaud O, Mansoor A, Alonso S et al (2013) Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT. Int Urogynecol J 24(10):1651–1661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH (2011) Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG 118(12):1518–1527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar