Abstract:Objective To investigate clinical significance and application of modified pelvic floor reconstruction developed by Peking Union Medical College Hospital ( MPFR ) in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) by comparing the effectiveness, quality of postoperative sexual life, life satisfaction and risk factors for POP recurrence with the following two surgical procedures: traditional total vaginal hysterectomy with anterior-posterior colporrhaphy (TVH-APC) and total vaginal hysterectomy with lateral colporrhaphy and sacrospinous ligament fixation and vaginal bridge repair and episiotomy (TVH-LC-SSLFVBR-EP). Methods Totally 173 patients with severe POP and at least two compartments defects of pelvic floor underwent surgeries in the study, 86 patients (group A) were treated by MPFR with polypropylene mesh application, 58 (group B) were treated by TVH-APC, and 29 patients (group C) were treated by TVH-LC-SSLF-VBR-EP. Peri-operative data and outcomes of postoperative courses at 6, 12, 18 months were collected and analyzed, in the meantime, the risk factors of recurrence were studied. Results (1) No statistical difference was observed among the above 3 groups in terms of length of operation, amount of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and morbidity after surgery ( P ＞ 0.05). ( 2 ) Cost hospitalization was ( 11 448 ±3049) Yuan in group A, which was significantly higher than (7262 ± 1607) Yuan in group B and (7140 ± 1817 ) Yuan in group C (P ＜ 0.05 ). (3) The length of vaginal cuff of (7.5 ± 1.4) cm in group A and ( 5.6 ± 1.1 ) cm in group C were significantly longer than (7.1±0.6) cm in group B ( P＜0.05). The width of vaginal cuff of (4.3±0.3) cm in group A was larger than (3.4±0.3) cm in group B and (3.3±0.4) cm in group C (P＜0.05). (4) The recurrence rate at 12 months after surgery was 12.8% (11/86)in group A, which was similar with 17.2%(5/29) in group C (P＞0.05) and significantly less than 36.2% (21/58) in group B (P＜0.05). The rate of active sexual life of 16.3% (14/86) in group A was significantly higher than 1.7% (1/58) in group B and 0 in group C ( P ＜ 0. 05 ). The index of life quality improvement at 12 months after surgery was 48±12 in group A, which was no less than 53±16 in group C ( P＞0.05) and higher than 27 ± 9 in group B ( P＜0.05). (5 ) Mesh rejection was observed in 6 patients in group A within 3 months after surgery, while the posterior vaginal wall was exclusively involved. No difference was found in urinary retention or urinary incontinence among three groups (P ＞0. 05 ). (6) The severe degree of POP, type of surgical procedure ( TVT-APC), anterior compartment defect of pelvic floor,and early days of performing pelvic floor reconstruction surgeries were high risk factors for POP recurrence (P＜ 0.05). Conclusions MPFR has a better curative effect and lower recurrence rate on patients with POP. It can help patients regain integrity of anatomical structure and functions of pelvic floor. TVH-LCSSLF-VBR-EP is also effective.

Long-term treatment outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery versus anterior-posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Long‐term Treatment Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Anterior–posterior Colporrhaphy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Age-stratified Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Midterm Prospective Comparison of Vaginal Repair with Mesh Vs Prolift System Devices for Prolapse

Comparison outcomes of three surgical procedures in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse and analysis of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence

Transperineal Pelvic Floor Ultrasound for Analyzing the Outcomes of Pelvic Floor Surgery for the Treatment of Anterior Compartment Prolapse: A Comparative Study of Transvaginal Mesh and Native-Tissue Repair

Long-term Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Study on Mesh-Augmented Vaginal Reconstructive Surgery in Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Transvaginal Mesh Versus Native Tissue Repair for Anterior and Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse

The Clinical Efficacy Of Biologic Mesh And Synthetic Mesh For Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery

Safety and Efficacy of a Self-Developed Chinese Pelvic Repair System and Avaulta Repair System for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Vs Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: 1 Year Results of a Multicenter Randomized Study

Clinical observation on anterior pelvic floor restruction with polypropylene mesh and posterior colporrhaphy

A Modified Anterior Compartment Reconstruction and Prolift-A for the Treatment of Anterior Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Non-Inferiority Study

Six-year Follow-Up Outcomes of the P(LLA-CL)/Fg Bio-Patch for Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse Treatment

Short-term Efficacy of Two Surgical Modalities for Pelvic Floor Reconstruction: a Comparative Study

Organ reserved pelvic floor reconstruction using gynemesh

Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

[Analysis of Mesh Related Complications after Trans-Vaginal Mesh-Augmented Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery].

Long term Follow-up of Transvaginal Anatomical Implant of Mesh in Pelvic organ prolapse

Surgical Outcomes and Quality of Life Post-Synthetic Mesh-Augmented Repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in the Chinese Population.