Search

To evaluate whether symptom resolution and sexual function is better after reinforcement with polypropylene mesh than with traditional anterior repair. Ninety-seven patients were randomized to anterior colporrhaphy and 105 to an operation with mesh. Participants were evaluated up to 24 months by physical examination, standard questions, and questionnaire. The overall symptom rate did not differ between the groups, but a sensation of vaginal bulge was reported less frequently in the mesh group, the figures being 17 versus 5 (p = 0.003). The recurrence rate for the no-mesh group was 41% and for the mesh group 11% (p < 0.001). The dyspareunia score was statistically significantly lower in the mesh group (p = 0.015). The mesh exposure rate was 8%. Sensation of vaginal bulge was relieved more efficiently by the mesh technique without causing dyspareunia.

Objective The objective of the study was to compare anterior colporrhaphy with and without a mesh. Study Design Two hundred two women with anterior prolapse were assigned to undergo colporrhaphy alone or reinforced with a tailored polypropylene mesh. Before and 2, 12, 24, and 36 months after surgery, the outcome was assessed by examination and standard questions. The primary endpoint was anatomic recurrence of anterior vaginal prolapse. Secondary outcomes were symptom resolution, reoperation, and mesh exposure. Results Recurrences of anterior vaginal prolapse were noted in 40 of the 97 (41%) in the colporrhaphy group and 14 of 105 (13%) in the mesh group ( P Conclusion At 3 year follow-up, anterior colporrhaphy with mesh reinforcement significantly reduced anatomic recurrences of anterior vaginal prolapse, but no difference in symptomatic recurrence were noted and the mesh erosion rate was high. The use of mesh was not associated with an increase in dyspareunia.

The objective of the study was to compare anterior colporrhaphy with and without a mesh.Two hundred two women with anterior prolapse were assigned to undergo colporrhaphy alone or reinforced with a tailored polypropylene mesh. Before and 2, 12, 24, and 36 months after surgery, the outcome was assessed by examination and standard questions. The primary endpoint was anatomic recurrence of anterior vaginal prolapse. Secondary outcomes were symptom resolution, reoperation, and mesh exposure.Recurrences of anterior vaginal prolapse were noted in 40 of the 97 (41%) in the colporrhaphy group and 14 of 105 (13%) in the mesh group (P.0001). The number needed to treat was thus 4. The proportion of symptomatic patients, including those with dyspareunia, did not differ between the groups. The mesh erosion rate was 19%.At 3 year follow-up, anterior colporrhaphy with mesh reinforcement significantly reduced anatomic recurrences of anterior vaginal prolapse, but no difference in symptomatic recurrence were noted and the mesh erosion rate was high. The use of mesh was not associated with an increase in dyspareunia.

To compare anterior colporrhaphy with and without a tailored mesh.Postmenopausal women with anterior vaginal prolapse to the hymen or beyond were randomly assigned to undergo traditional anterior colporrhaphy alone or reinforced with mesh. The low-weight monofilament polypropylene mesh was self-tailored, having four arms and being placed over the plicated fascia. Before and 2 and 12 months after surgery, participants were evaluated by physical examination, postvoidal residual urine measurement and standard questions covering prolapse-related symptoms. The primary outcome was recurrence of anterior vaginal prolapse at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included operative complications, symptom resolution, and postvoidal urine residual volume.Of the 202 women randomly assigned, 201 were operated on (97 without, 104 with mesh). Thirty-seven women (38.5%) in the no-mesh and seven (6.7%) in the mesh group experienced a recurrence of anterior wall prolapse (P.001) at 12 months; as a result, the number needed to treat for benefit was four. The mean (standard deviation) postvoidal residual urine volume was lower in patients with mesh than in those undergoing the traditional operation: 25 (26) mL and 41 (57) mL (P=.01). Twenty-three women (23%) with mesh and 9 (10%) with no mesh reported stress urinary incontinence (P=.02). In 18 (17.3%), exposure of the mesh was noted, mainly asymptomatic.Anterior colporrhaphy, reinforced with, tailored mesh significantly reduced the rate of recurrence of anterior vaginal wall prolapse compared with the traditional operation, but was associated more often with stress urinary incontinence.