Are Two Meshes Better than One in Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse? Comparison of Single Anterior versus Anterior and Posterior Vaginal Mesh Procedures

Introduction: Sacrocolpopexy (SC) is the main treatment option for the repair of anterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Indications and technical aspects are not standardized, and the question remains whether it is necessary to place a mesh on both anterior and posterior vaginal walls, particularly in cases with only minor or no posterior compartment prolapse. The present study aimed to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of single anterior mesh only versus anterior and posterior mesh procedures in SC. Materials and methods: Our prospectively maintained database on POP was used to identify patients who had undergone either abdominal or mini-invasive SC from January 2006 to October 2019. Patients with symptomatic or unmasked stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were not included in the study and were treated using the pubo-vaginal cystocele sling procedure. Objective outcomes included clinical evaluation of pre-existing or de novo POP by the halfway system and POP-q classifications, as well as the development of de novo SUI. Subjective outcomes were assessed using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) with questions on bladder, bowel, and vaginal functions. Persistent or de novo constipation and overactive bladder were defined as bowel symptoms and urinary urgency/frequency/urinary incontinence after surgery. Results: Ninety-five women with symptomatic anterior and apical POP underwent SC. Forty-one patients were treated with only anterior vaginal mesh (group A), and 54 with anterior and posterior mesh (group B). There were no differences between the pre- and post-operative characteristics of the 2 groups. In group B, there were 2 blood transfusions, 1 wound dehiscence, and 3 mesh erosions/extrusion after abdominal SC (Clavien-Dindo II), and in group A, there was 1 ileal lesion after laparoscopic SC (Clavien-Dindo III). There were no differences between the 2 groups in either anatomical or functional outcomes during 3 years of follow-up. Conclusions: SC with single anterior vaginal mesh has similar results to SC with combined anterior/posterior mesh, regardless of the surgical approach. The single anterior mesh may reduce the risk of complications (mesh erosion/extrusion), and offers better subjective outcomes with improved quality of life. Anterior/posterior mesh may be justified in the presence of clinically significant posterior POP.