Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 289, Issue 4, pp 817–821

Mesh implantation for pelvic organ prolapse improves quality of life

General Gynecology



The use of alloplastic meshes for repair of female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has recently been discussed for its indications and safety. Mesh exposure and chronic pelvic pain are among the risks that need to be addressed to the patients. The purpose of this prospective observational study is to investigate the effect of vaginal mesh implantation on pelvic floor-related quality of life (QoL).


55 patients were included in this prospective multicenter study. A validated QoL questionnaire comprising items on prolapse symptoms and bladder, bowel and sexual function was used. QoL data were acquired before and 1 year after POP surgery. Patients underwent POP surgery with implantation of either Prolift® or Seratom® mesh.


Quality of life scores improved significantly after surgery. Prolapse complaints were reduced from 4.43 to 0.26 (p < 0.001), and bladder and bowel complaints improved from 3.03 to 1.46 (p < 0.001) and from 1.93 to 1.60 (p < 0.01) at follow-up. Furthermore, the sexual function score improved from 2.31 to 1.12 postoperatively (p < 0.01).


Despite the risks discussed for vaginal mesh repair, we observed a statistically significant improvement of pelvic floor-related quality of life of POP patients.


Pelvic organ prolapse Polypropylene mesh Quality of life Sexuality 


  1. 1.
    Mallett VT, Bump RC (1994) The epidemiology of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 6(4):308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dannecker C, Anthuber C (2000) The effects of childbirth on the pelvic-floor. J Perinat Med 28(3):175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fritel X et al (2009) Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse at midlife, quality of life, and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol 113(3):609PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whitcomb EL et al (2009) Prevalence and degree of bother from pelvic floor disorders in obese women. Int Urogynecol J 20(3):289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swift S et al (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(3):795–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kudish BI et al (2009) Effect of weight change on natural history of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 113(1):81PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD (2007) Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 369(9566):1027–1038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Athanasiou S et al (2012) Pelvic organ prolapse contributes to sexual dysfunction: a cross-sectional study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(6):704–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Altman D et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364(19):1826–1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nieminen K et al (2008) Symptom resolution and sexual function after anterior vaginal wall repair with or without polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J 19(12):1611–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maher C, Baessler K (2006) Surgical management of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: an evidence based literature review. Int Urogynecol J 17(2):195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abdel-fattah M, Ramsay I (2008) Retrospective multicentre study of the new minimally invasive mesh repair devices for pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG 115(1):22–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fatton B et al (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift™ technique)—a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J 18(7):743–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Solà Dalenz V et al (2007) Treatment of female genital prolapse with Prolift system. Acta Urol Esp 31(8):850–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cosson M et al (2005) Prolift mesh (Gynecare) for pelvic organ prolapse surgical treatment using the TVM group technique: a retrospective study of 687 patients. Neurourol Urodyn 24(5/6):121Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baessler K (2006) Psychometrische Validierung eines umfassenden Beckenboden-fragebogens für Klinik, Praxis und Forschung. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 67(S1):01–10Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Butler R et al (1994) Love and sex after 60: how to evaluate and treat the sexually-active woman. Geriatrics 49(11):33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber AM et al (1995) Sexual function in women with uterovaginal prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 85(4):483–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fashokun TBO et al (2013) Sexual activity and function in women with and without pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J 24(1):91–97PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gass MLS et al (2011) Patterns and predictors of sexual activity among women in the hormone therapy trials of the Women’s Health Initiative. Menopause 18(11):1160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dua A et al (2012) The effect of prolapse repair on sexual function in women. J Sex Med 9:1459–1465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aungst MJ et al (2009) De novo stress incontinence and pelvic muscle symptoms after transvaginal mesh repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201(1):73 e1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atilla Yesil
    • 1
  • Dirk Watermann
    • 2
  • Juliane Farthmann
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCantonal Hospital of BasellandLiestalSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyDiakonie HospitalFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Medical CenterFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations