title: Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This trial aimed to compare the outcomes of native vaginal tissue repair versus polypropylene mesh repair for the treatment of severe genital prolapse.
  
  
  METHODS
  This multicenter randomized trial included 184 women, with POP-Q stage 3 or 4. They were randomly assigned to undergo surgical treatment using native tissue repair (n = 90) or synthetic mesh repair (n = 94). Native tissue repair surgery was performed according to site-specific defects, including sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical defects. Mesh repair (Prolift™) was performed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Hysterectomy was performed in all cases of uterine prolapse. Statistical tests were used to compare between-group and within-group differences before the surgery and at 1-year follow-up. We considered cure to have occurred when the POP-Q point evaluation was equal to or less than 0 and POP-Q point C better than or equal to half the total vaginal length (TVL) after 1 year. The patients answered the Prolapse Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (PQoL) and the Sexual Quotient Female Version (QS-F) questionnaire.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Both groups were homogeneous preoperatively. There were no differences between the groups in operative time, complications or pain. At 1-year follow-up, anatomical cure rates were better in the mesh group in the anterior compartment (p = 0.019). Significant improvement in PQoL scores at 1-year follow up were observed in each group; between-group comparisons of changes in PQoL scores revealed greater improvement in the mesh group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both techniques were effective. Anatomical efficacy was superior in the mesh group regarding the anterior compartment; quality of life changes were also greater in the mesh group. Complications were significantly higher in the mesh group.
authors.affiliation: Hospital Universitário da Universidade de São Paulo, R. Luis Martins, 5/ 102, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, 05060-050, sibrandao@yahoo.com.br.
authors.forename: Simone
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dos Reis Brandão da Silveira
authors.forename: Jorge Milhem
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Haddad
authors.forename: Zsuzsanna Ilona Katalin
authors.initials: ZI
authors.lastname: de Jármy-Di Bella
authors.forename: Fernanda
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Nastri
authors.forename: Miriam Goncalves Markos
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Kawabata
authors.forename: Silvia
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: da Silva Carramão
authors.forename: Claudinei Alves
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Rodrigues
authors.forename: Edmund Chada
authors.initials: EC
authors.lastname: Baracat
authors.forename: Antonio Pedro Flores
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Auge
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007044:Hysterectomy; D008875:Middle Aged; D061646:Operative Time; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000209:etiology; D011126:Polypropylenes; D011788:Quality of Life; D012008:Recurrence; D012086:Reoperation; D019529:Sexuality; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014596:Uterine Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*; D014621:Vagina / Q000601:surgery*
chemical_list: D011126:Polypropylenes