Transperineal pelvic floor ultrasound for analyzing the outcomes of pelvic floor surgery for the treatment of anterior compartment prolapse: A comparative study of transvaginal mesh and native-tissue repair

Objective To compare the outcomes of transvaginal mesh (TVM) and native-tissue repair (NTR) for the repair of anterior compartment prolapse. Methods This retrospective study involved 90 patients with anterior compartment prolapse who underwent pelvic organ prolapse surgery between January 2018 and October 2020. A TVM was used to treat 53 patients and 37 underwent NTR. All patients underwent a standardized interview, clinical examination, and four-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound (PFUS) before and after the surgery. The primary outcome was anatomic recurrence evaluated by ultrasonic parameters. The secondary outcomes were subjective recurrence and complications. Results Subjective recurrence was 9.43% (5/53) for TVM and 16.22% (6/37) for NTR (P = .522). Significant recurrence of prolapse on ultrasound occurred in five patients (9.43%) after TVM and 12 (32.43%) after NTR; there was a significant difference between the TVM and NTR groups (P = .006). In the TVM group, the mesh was visible on ultrasound in each patient. The mesh exposure rate was 1.89% (1/53). The postoperative hiatal area reduction in the TVM group, compared with the NTR group, was statistically significant (5.55 ± 4.71 cm2 vs 3.09 ± 5.61 cm2 , P = .027). The incidence of de novo stress urinary incontinence was higher in the TVM group (20.75% vs 2.70%, P = .03). After surgery, there were significant differences between the two groups based on bladder descent (12.02 ± 8.64 mm vs 22.41 ± 13.95 mm, P = .000) and urethral rotation angle (25.26 ± 13.92° vs 40.27 ± 23.72°, P = .001). Conclusion PFUS is effective for evaluating postoperative outcomes. TVM facilitates a better anatomic cure than NTR for anterior compartment prolapse.