Composite Outcomes After Posterior Colporrhaphy With and Without Biologic Graft Augmentation

To compare subjective and objective failure after posterior colporrhaphy with and without biologic graft augmentation.

We conducted a retrospective chart review and telephone survey of patients who underwent a posterior colporrhaphy with and without biologic graft augmentation from 2005 to 2019. Patients who underwent a sacrocolpopexy, uterosacral ligament suspensions, or anterior sacrospinous ligament fixation were excluded. We determined objective, subjective, and composite failure rates.

Although 137 patients met eligibility criteria, 56 did not have valid contact information and, therefore, were excluded from the study. Of the 81 with valid contact information, 67 (83%) agreed to participate. There were 24 (36%) who had a native tissue repair and 43 (64%) who had biologic graft augmentation. Median telephone follow-up was 73 months (interquartile range [IQR], 36-117). Objective failure was similar for the biologic graft (37%) and the native tissue (42%) groups (P = 0.72). Subjective failure was twice as likely among the biologic graft group (60%) compared with the native tissue group (33%, P = 0.03). Patients with a biologic graft reported a median Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20 improvement of 31 (IQR, 8-33), while those with a native tissue repair reported a median improvement of 45 (IQR, 4-46). Overall, 78% were satisfied, 85% would recommend the procedure, and 84% reported symptomatic improvement. Reoperation occurred for 15% of patients.

Although biologic graft-augmented posterior colporrhaphy may be a safe and effective treatment option, the use of biologic grafts in the posterior compartment does not appear to confer a significant long-term benefit to traditional posterior colporrhaphy.