Objective To review systemically the effectiveness and safety of mesh versus traditional colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse . Methods The literature were retrieved from the PubMed ( 1980 -2013 ) , Cochrane ( 1995 -2013 ) , Google Scholar (1980-2013), CNKI (1980-2013), and SinoMed (1980-2013).The randomized controlled trials (RCT) were collected and compared, and the data were analyzed by using the RevMan 5.0 software. Results There were totally 10 randomized controlled trials collected .Meta-analysis showed that:the operation time was significantly longer in the mesh group than that in the colporrhaphy group [WMD:16.57 min, 95%CI:14.06-19.08 min, P<0.00001]; the intraoperative blood loss was significantly more in the mesh group than that in the colporrhaphy group [ WMD: 24.98 ml, 95%CI:7.13 -42.84 ml, P=0.006]; the mesh group was superior to colporrhaphy group in the increase of objective cure rate [OR:4.16, 95%CI:3.10-5.58,P<0.00001] and subjective cure rate [OR:2.13, 95%CI:1.55-2.91, P<0.00001]; as compared with all various relating operations , the incidence rate of dyspareunia was statistically significant (P=0.04), whereas there were no statistical differences in postoperative recurrence of urinary incontinence and re-operation (P=0.13, P=0.06). Conclusion Apllication of mesh for pelvic organ prolapse can improve the objective and subjective cure rates .Mesh may be usefully applied to the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse , and further high-quality prospective studies are needed .