Conventional fascial technique versus mesh repair for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: Analysis of recurrences in treated and untreated compartments

117 women with severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP; stage > 2) were enrolled to elucidate a 24-month outcomeof POP surgery, using conventional or mesh repair with 3 techniques. 59 patients underwent conventional repair and 58 underwent mesh repair. Two types of mesh were used: a trocar-guided transobturator polypropylene (Avaulta, Bard Inc.) and a porcine dermis mesh (Pelvisoft, Bard Inc.). Women with recurrences, who underwent previous unsuccessful conventional repair, were randomised. Primary outcome was the evaluation of anatomic failures (prolapse stage > 1) in treated and untreated compartments. Anatomic failure was observed in 11 of 58 patients (19%; CI 8.9-29) in the mesh group and in 16 of 59 patients (27.1%; p value = 0.3) in the conventional group. 9 of 11 failures in the mesh group (15.5%; CI 6.2-24.8) were observed in the untreated compartment (de novo recurrences), 14.3% in Pelvisoft and 16.7% in Avaulta arm, while only 1 recurrence in the untreated compartment (1.7%) was observed in the conventional group (odds ratio 10.6, p = 0.03).