Repair of recurrent rectocele with posterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable polypropylene mesh—patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare the results of repair of isolated, recurrent, posterior vaginal wall prolapse using standard posterior colporrhaphy versus non-absorbable polypropylene mesh in a routine health care setting. METHODS: This cohort study was based on prospectively collected data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery. All patients operated for recurrent, posterior vaginal wall prolapse in Sweden between 1 January 2006 and 30 October 2016 were included. A total of 433 women underwent posterior colporrhaphy, and 193 were operated using non-absorbable mesh. Data up to 1 year were collected. RESULTS: The 1-year patient-reported cure rate was higher for the mesh group compared with the colporrhaphy group, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–4.35], corresponding to a number needed to treat of 9.7. Patient satisfaction (OR = 2.38; CI 1.2–4.97) and improvement (OR = 2.13; CI 1.02–3.82) were higher in the mesh group. However, minor surgeon-reported complications were more frequent with mesh (OR = 2.74; CI 1.51–5.01). Patient-reported complications and re-operations within 12 months were comparable in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with isolated rectocele relapse, mesh reinforcement enhances the likelihood of success compared with colporrhaphy at 1-year follow-up. Also, in our study, mesh repair was associated with greater patient satisfaction and improvement of symptoms, but an increase in minor complications. Our study indicates that the benefits of mesh reinforcement may outweigh the risks of this procedure for women with isolated recurrent posterior prolapse.