Transvaginal polypropylene mesh versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to compare the anatomical and quality of life outcomes of a posterior polypropylene mesh kit versus sacrospinous ligament fixation at the time of hysterectomy for the treatment of uterine prolapse.

METHODS

Thirty-two women aged 50 to 75 years with stage III or IV (pelvic organ prolapse quantification system/International Continence Society) uterine prolapse were randomized into two groups (group 1: polypropylene mesh, Nazca R, Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina; group 2: sacrospinous ligament fixation).

RESULTS

At 12-month follow-ups, we observed the same anatomical results in both groups. The median operating time, intraoperative blood loss, and perioperative complications were also equal in both groups. There were five cases (35.71%) of mesh erosion, and prolapse of the anterior vaginal wall (cystocele) occurred in 50% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar anatomical and quality of life outcomes were observed with polypropylene mesh and sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Complication rate was higher in the mesh group.