Comparison of anterior colporrhaphy and repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse
Öz
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare anterior colporrhaphy versus mesh repair as surgical management of anterior vaginal prolapse at the 12-months follow-up.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was performed on 69 patients who were diagnosed with symptomatic anterior vaginal compartment defect (Grade II or higher) according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Thirty-six of these patients underwent conventional colporrhaphy anterior (Group 1), thirty-three patients (Group 2) were treated with anterior repair via mesh application. Operation type and duration, patient satisfaction and objective and subjective cure rates, postoperative pain score using visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at 6-months and 12-months.
Results: Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in Group 2. Objective cure rates at 12-months after surgery were found 87.8% in Group 2 and 61.1% in Group 1; the difference was statistically significant. Subjective cure rates were determined as 90.9% in group 2 and 69.4% in Group 1. The duration of operation was confirmed to be significantly longer in the mesh group than Group 1. No significant differences were found between one day after and one year after surgery, in comparisons of our groups regarding VAS score for pelvic pain.
Conclusion: The anterior repair with mesh procedure seems to be advantageous due to the higher objective cure rate and patient satisfaction for the treatment of anterior compartment defects.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- 1. Doaee M, Moradi-Lakeh M, Nourmohammadi A, Razavi-Ratki SK, Nojomi M. Management of pelvic organ prolapse and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(2):153–63.
- 2. Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): The distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2005; 192:795–806
- 3. Gunasekera P, Sazaki J, Walker G. Pelvic organ prolapse: don’t forget developing countries. Lancet. 2007; 369, 1789–1790.
- 4. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89(4), 501–506.
- 5. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA. Anterior colporrhaphy: A randomized trial of three surgical techniques. In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2001; 185:1299–1306.
- 6. Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, et al. Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: A randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(3):235.e1-235.e8.
- 7. Altman MD PhD D, Väyrynen MD T, Engh MD PhD ME, Axelsen MD PhD S, Falconer MD PhD C. Anterior Colporrhaphy versus Transvaginal Mesh for Pelvic-Organ Prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36.
- 8. El-Nazer MA, Gomaa IA, Ismail Madkour WA, Swidan KH, El-Etriby MA. Anterior colporrhaphy versus repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: A comparative clinical study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(4):965–72.
- 9. Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME. Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(2), 242–250.
- 10. Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I. A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. Int Urogynecol J. 2008; 19(4), 467–471
