Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation...

The objective of this paper was to review the literature on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and compare the success of traditional/native tissue versus mesh-augmented repairs. A comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed and bibliography searches to compare the anatomic success rates of native tissue (NT) and mesh-augmented (MA) prolapse repairs and to analyze outcome measures used to report success rates. Articles were included if anatomic outcomes were stated for the specific compartment of interest and included both prospective and retrospective studies. The published success rates for NT repairs versus MA repairs by anterior, posterior, or apical compartments are reported. When continence is used as the primary outcome measure, anterior NT has a success rate of 54%. Anterior NT success is as low as 30% in some studies, but generally is 88-97% when prolapse is the primary outcome particularly if apical support is included. This compares to the 87-96% success reported for anterior MA. Posterior NT success is 54-81%, which is lower than the 92-97% reported for posterior MA when prolapse is the outcome measure. The success rates for apical NT are 97-98% for uterosacral ligament suspension and 96% for sacrospinous ligament suspension, which compare favorably to sacrocolpopexy (91-100%). There are some differences in the complications reported for NT and MA. The rate of complications is approximately 8% for NT and is reported at 0-19% for MA. The higher rate for MA is largely due to mesh erosion/exposure. When similar outcome measures are compared, the published anatomic success rates of POP of anterior and apical compartmental surgery are similar for NT and MA repairs. There may be a higher rate of complications noted for mesh implantation. POP surgery is complex, and both NT and MA techniques require skills to perform proper compartmental reconstruction. An understanding of the published literature and knowledge of individual surgeon factors are important in deciding which surgical approach to use and how to best counsel patients during informed consent.