Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare vaginal repair augmented by mesh with traditional colporrhaphy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Design: This was a single-center prospective cohort observational study. Materials and Methods: We prospectively recruited patients undergoing vaginal mesh (n = 41) and traditional colporrhaphy (n = 44) at a university hospital in the United Kingdom. The validated ICIQ-VS questionnaire was completed preoperatively and up to 3 years postoperatively. Results: Improvement in the mean of the symptom scores in the mesh group was -18.75 (SD= -9.731) compared to -12.88 in the no-mesh group (SD= 12.065, p < 0.003). The change in mean visual analogue scores for 'bother' of symptoms in the mesh group was -14.9 (SD= -7.992) compared to -8.3 in the no-mesh group (SD= -5.945, p < 0.000056). A negative change indicates a decrease in score over time, and improvement in symptoms. There were significant improvements with mesh compared with traditionally treated patients only with regard to vaginal soreness and dragging pain. In the mesh group, the exposure rate was 10% (n = 4). Both groups had statistically significant improvements in all their postoperative symptoms except for the symptoms of vaginal dryness and vaginal sensation in the traditional group. Conclusions: There were statistically significant improvements in all symptoms in the mesh category. In the traditional repair group, there were statistically significant improvements in all symptoms except for vaginal sensation and a dry vagina. Comparison revealed statistical significant improvements in favor of mesh only with regard to the symptoms of a sore vagina and of dragging pain.