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.

Postoperative complications and recurrence rates after rectal prolapse surgery versus combined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgery

Surgical approach, complications, and reoperation rates of combined rectal and pelvic organ prolapse surgery

Durable Approaches to Recurrent Rectal Prolapse Repair May Require Avoidance of Index Procedure

Quality of Life, Functional Outcomes, and Recurrence After Resection Rectopexy Versus Ventral Mesh Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse Repair

Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study

Pelvic peritoneum closure reduces postoperative complications of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: 6-year experience in single center

Rectal Prolapse Surgery: Balancing Effectiveness and Safety in Abdominal and Perineal Approaches

Retrospective Study on the Complications after Procedure for Prolapse and Hemorrhoids Based on Pathology

Early safety and efficiency outcomes of a novel interdisciplinary laparoscopic resection rectopexy combined with sacrocolpopexy for women with obstructive defecation syndrome and pelvic organ prolapse: a single center study

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

Outcomes Following Pelvic Exenteration for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer With and Without En Bloc Sacrectomy

Single-docking Robotic Assisted Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer below Peritoneal Reflection: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Anatomical and functional outcomes of rectal prolapse treatment with laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse suspension versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy

Complications of obliterative versus reconstructive vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in octogenarians: A retrospective cohort study

Comparison of the surgical outcomes between paravaginal repair and anterior colporrhaphy: A retrospective case-control study

Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse after Sacrocolpopexy—A Surgical Challenge

Postoperative urinary retention after pelvic organ prolapse repair: Vaginal versus robotic transabdominal approach

Comparison of robot-assisted vs. traditional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: Outcomes and quality of life

Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids vs traditional surgery for outlet obstructive constipation

Long-term Outcomes and Propensity Score Matching Analysis: Rectal Cancer Resection for Patients with Elevated Preoperative Risk

The Outcomes and Patterns of Treatment Failure After Surgery for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer