Clinical observation on quality of life of two different operative methods of total pelvic floor reconstruction.

Abstract

To compare patients' quality of life followed by Prolift operation and the revised total pelvic floor reconstruction with Gynemesh. Thirty one patients underwent total pelvic floor reconstruction surgery were divided into two groups, including 14 cases treated by Prolift surgery and 17 cases treated by the revised total pelvic floor construction with Gynemesh. The body weight index (BWI), menopausal age and gravidity history did not show significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05). The patients' age with 63 +/- 9 in Prolift group was significantly lower than 69 +/- 5 in Gynemesh group (P < 0.05). Questionnair score of quality of life were collected and evaluated pre- and post-operation. (1) Preoperative scores: there was no significantly different scores of the following index between two groups (P > 0.05), which were 91 +/- 42 in pelvic floor impact query, 100 +/- 59 in pelvic floor distress query and 77 +/- 26 in sexual life query in Prolift group, 65 +/- 56 in pelvic floor impact query, 89 +/- 73 in pelvic floor distress query and 75 +/- 18 in sexual life query in Gynemesh group. (2) Postoperative scores: similarly, there was also no significantly different scores in the following index between two groups (P > 0.05), which were 7 +/- 15 in pelvic floor impact query, 27 +/- 24 in pelvic floor distress query and 79 +/- 43 in sexual life query in Prolift group, 13 +/- 24 in pelvic floor impact query, 24 +/- 21 in pelvic floor distress query and 74 +/- 15 in sexual life query in Gynemesh group. The patients' quality of life were improved after Prolift operation and the revised total pelvic floor construction with Gynemesh. However, about quality of sexual life, Prolift operation did much better than revised pelvic surgery with Gynemesh.