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.

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

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

Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa Mesh for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapsed.

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

Effect of Pelvic Reconstruction Surgery with Synthetic Mesh on Improving the Short Term Quality of Life in Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse

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

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

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

[Preliminary Study on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treated by Using Small Intestinal Submucosa Mesh].

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

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

Comparison of two female pelvic floor reconstructive surgeries

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

Clinical Analysis of Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Opreation in 31 Cases With SUI and POP

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

Application of Acellular Dermal Mesh in Female Pelvic Reconstruction Surgery

1473 Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Sis Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Comparison of Prolift System and Gynemesh in Total Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery

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

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

[Prospective Multi-Center Study in "xiehe" Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery for Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse].