Anterior colporrhaphy versus repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a comparative clinical study.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of anterior colporrhaphy versus mesh repair as surgical management of anterior vaginal prolapse.

METHODS

Of 50 patients with ≥stage II anterior vaginal prolapse on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POPQ) system who were initially approached, 44 consented and underwent surgery. They were randomly recruited into two groups. Group I (23 patients) received anterior colporrhaphy, while group II (21 patients) received soft polypropylene mesh (GYNEMESH*PS, Gynecare, Ethicon, France). Clinical assessment took place preoperatively and postoperatively at definite intervals. Functional and anatomical comparisons were based on comparison between preoperative and 24 months postoperative assessments of symptoms and POPQ stages, respectively. Four patients in total did not complete the follow-up assessments and were excluded.

RESULTS

Both groups showed clinical improvement in their symptoms and POPQ staging at the end of the postoperative follow-up period. Improvement, however, was more significant in the repair with mesh group, as patients in this group reported better improvement of their prolapse symptoms, mainly vaginal bulge/pressure sensation (P < 0.05), and showed better improvement in the anatomical staging, individual POP-Q points Aa and Ba (P < 0.01), than the anterior colporrhaphy group. Group II also showed more satisfactory outcome with the general POP-Q staging (P < 0.05) than group I, reflecting a better quality of life of the patients in the repair with mesh group.

CONCLUSION

Our data shows that repair with mesh is superior to anterior colporrhaphy with more satisfactory outcome to the patients. Due to the small size of our study and uncertainty of the long-term safety and resilience of the mesh, we recommend larger studies to confirm our preliminary results.