Purpose: Because traditional anterior colporrhaphy can have a high recurrence rate, we assessed the recurrence rate of 3 methods of cystocele repair, including 1) traditional anterior colporrhaphy, 2) repair using porcine dermis interposition graft and 3) repair using polypropylene mesh. Additionally, we compared the rate of erosion of porcine dermal graft with that of polypropylene mesh.
Materials and methods: The records of patients who underwent cystocele repair by the same urologist using porcine dermal graft, polypropylene mesh or traditional repair from January 1999 to August 2005 were reviewed. Data were collected on history, physical examination, outcomes and complications. Using the Baden-Walker system a cystocele of grade 2 or higher on followup examination was considered recurrence.
Results: A total of 119 patients underwent cystocele repair from January 1999 to August 2005. Followup was available on 99 patients and it averaged 13.5 months (range 2 to 46). Of the patients 56 (57%) underwent cystocele repair using porcine dermal graft, 25 (25%) received polypropylene mesh and 18 (18%) underwent traditional repair. Of the 99 patients 22 (22%) had cystocele recurrence. Based on the type of repair 36% of patients (20 of 56) with porcine dermal grafts had recurrence compared to 4% (1 of 25) and 6% (1 of 18) using polypropylene and traditional repair, respectively. Mean time to cystocele recurrence was 4.9 months (range 0.5 to 20). A total of 12 patients (21%) had extrusion of porcine grafts through the anterior vaginal wall incision compared to 1 (4%) with polypropylene mesh.
Conclusions: In our patient population the short-term failure rate for anterior vaginal wall prolapse using porcine dermis interposition graft was higher than that for traditional anterior colporrhaphy or polypropylene mesh. In addition, the incidence of vaginal extrusion of porcine graft was unacceptably high. Porcine dermis is a less suitable material for cystocele repair than polypropylene mesh or traditional anterior colporrhaphy. Prospective, randomized trials are necessary to determine the true efficacy and complication rates of these graft materials for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair.