Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction with Six-Arm Mesh in Patients with Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A 1-Year Retrospective Study
Open Access
- 1 September 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis Ltd in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
- Vol. ume 16, 861-870
- https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.s267832
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the effect of total pelvic floor reconstruction with a six-arm mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective observational cohort study. A total of 368 patients with pelvic organ prolapse underwent pelvic floor reconstruction surgery. Patients were categorized by the type of surgical mesh: 176 patients received a six-arm mesh and 192 patients received an anteroposterior approach mesh. The 1-year effect of the two groups was compared. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire (PFDI-20), Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitation (POP-Q) staging were used for evaluation. The incidence of complications was recorded. A cure standard was registered by a POP-Q score of grade I or below. A P value < 0.05 indicates the difference is statistically significant. Results: There was no recurrence documented in the patients; the cure rate was 100% in both groups. After surgery, the length of the vagina in the six-arm mesh group was longer than that of the control group at 6 months and 12 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The six-arm mesh group had lower PFDI-20 and CRADI-8 scores after surgery than those of the control group at 6 and 12 months, respectively (P < 0.05). Pelvic floor and rectal dysfunction symptom improvement were superior in the six-arm mesh group compared with the control group. After surgery, the Female Sexual Function Inventory (FSFI) score of the six-arm mesh group was superior to that of the control group at 6 and 12 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The incidence of complications in the six-arm mesh group was lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The total pelvic floor reconstruction using six-arm mesh has the same healing rate as anteroposterior approach mesh surgery, and it is better than traditional surgery in improving subjective symptoms and reducing postoperative complications.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinical outcomes of mesh exposure/extrusion: presentation, timing and managementAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2015
- Outcomes and complications of trans-vaginal mesh repair using the Prolift™ kit for pelvic organ prolapse at 4 years median follow-up in a tertiary referral centreArchiv für Gynäkologie, 2014
- Two-Year Outcomes After Vaginal Prolapse Reconstruction With Mesh Pelvic Floor Repair SystemUrogynecology, 2013
- Does the type of surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer affect the rate of reported lymphovascular space invasion in final pathology specimens?American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2013
- Trends in use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapseAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2012
- Risk Factors for Exposure, Pain, and Dyspareunia After Tension-Free Vaginal Mesh ProcedureObstetrics & Gynecology, 2011
- Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic reviewInternational Urogynecology Journal, 2011
- Lifetime Risk of Undergoing Surgery for Pelvic Organ ProlapseObstetrics & Gynecology, 2010
- Evaluation of the Female Sexual Function Index in a Population Based Sample from FinlandArchives of Sexual Behavior, 2008
- Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7)American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2005