Clinical Analysis On Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treated By Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery And Routine Transvaginal Surgery

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of pelvic floorreconstruction surgery and routine transvaginal surgery in treating pelvicorgan prolapse（POP）.Methods64patients with POP who had visited the hospital from June2009to November2010were analyzed retrospectively，all patients weredivided into two groups，32cases of the reconstruction group were treatedwith pelvic floor reconstruction surgery，the other32cases in routinetreatment group with routine transvaginal surgery(transvaginalhysterectomy，repair of anterior and posterior vaginal wall)，and to analyzethe efficacy of the two groups after surgery.Result The operation was successfully completed for all the patients．Noincision infection，no vascular injury，urethral injury，bladder injury，andrectal injury occurred．The average operation time，the intraoperative bloodloss，the highest postoperative body temperature，the anal exsufflationtime，the urinary canal indwelling time and the postoperative hospital timewere（74.91±28.48)minutes，(80.47±45.14)ml，(37.01±0.49)℃，(36.44 ±11.12)hours，(2.66±0.90)days and (4.44±1.22)days in reconstructiongroup，（108.91±34.47)minutes，(167.50±94.53) ml，(37.66±0.43)℃，(56.50±18.65)hours，(5.03±0.78)days and (7.00±2.11)days in routinetreatment group，there was significant difference between the two groups(P＜0.05)．One patient(3.1％) experienced recurrence，one patient(3.1％)experienced mesh erosion，In reconstruction group，one patient(3.1％)experienced new urinary tract symptoms，Of19patients who were sexuallyactive，one patient suffered from algopareunia and two from sexualintercourse discomfort．In routine treatment group，eight patients(25％)experienced recurrence，four patients(12.5％) experienced new urinarytract symptoms，Of16patients who were sexually active，three patientssuffered from algopareunia and five from sexual intercoursediscomfort．There was no significant difference in objective curative ratesat3and6months after operation between the two groups(P＞0.05)，therewas significant difference in objective curative rate at12months afteroperation between the two groups(P＜0.05)．The objective curative rate inreconstruction group was significantly higher than that in routine treatmentgroup.Conclusion Pelvic floor reconstruction surgery is a safe and effectiveprocedure in short-term which can better regain integrity of anatomicalstructure and functions of pelvic floor for POP，with the advantages ofmicro-invasive，fast recovery，high curative rate，less recurrence rate，less postoperative complications，but its long-term follow-up is still needed.