A Comparison of Traditional Anterior Colporrhaphy and Cystocele Repair with Monofilament Polypropylene Mesh Repair (Gynemesh PSTM).
10.4111/kju.2008.49.7.616
- Author:
Jin Kuk CHO
1
;
Byung Soo CHUNG
;
Sung Tae CHO
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Seoul, Korea. stcho@hallym.or.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Cystocele;
Polypropylene mesh;
Surgery
- MeSH:
Cicatrix;
Cystocele;
Humans;
Patient Satisfaction;
Physical Examination;
Polypropylenes;
Prolapse;
Recurrence;
Suburethral Slings
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2008;49(7):616-621
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Traditional anterior colporrhaphy repair can have a high recurrence rate. Therefore, the use of synthetic mesh to reinforce the anterior vaginal wall support has been proposed to prevent recurrence. The objective of our study was to compare the anatomic recurrence rates in patients that underwent the traditional anterior colporrhaphy with patients who add a monofilament polypropylene mesh repair(Gynemesh PSTM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of patients who underwent transvaginal cystocele repair between January 2003 and June 2006. All patients had a physical examination and staging of the prolapse; the International Continence Society(ICS) system was used for the staging. Mid urethral sling operations were performed when stress incontinences was an associated feature. An anatomic recurrence was defined as an ICS stage 2 or greater anterior prolapse on the last recorded physical examination. The subjective patient satisfaction was also recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were available for study with a mean follow- up of 18.4 months. Thirty-eight patients underwent traditional anterior colporrhaphy, while 33 patients underwent cystocele repair using the monofilament polypropylene mesh(Gynemesh PSTM). Among the 71 patients, 9(12.7%) had recurrence of the cystocele. Based on the type of repair, 21.1%(8/38) of the patients with traditional repair had a recurrence compared to 3.0%(1/33) of the patients with the polypropylene mesh repair(p=0.03). With regard to satisfaction, 76.3%(29/38) of the patients with anterior colporrhaphy and 97.0%(32/33) with the mesh repair were satisfied with the outcome of the surgery(p=0.02). One patient had erosion of the mesh, at the midline, in front of the vaginal scar, at 12 months after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the monofilament polypropylene mesh(Gynemesh PSTM) repairs improved the outcomes of anterior colporrhaphy with regard to the prevention of recurrent cystoceles.
