Long-term outcomes of primary cystocele repair by transvaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy: extended follow up of the PROSPERE multicentre randomised trial.

Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) and transvaginal mesh (TVM) at 4 years. Design Extended follow up of a randomised trial. Setting Eleven centres. Population Women with cystocele stage ≥2 (pelvic organ prolapse quantification [POP-Q], aged 45-75 years without previous prolapse surgery. Methods Synthetic non-absorbable mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space and sutured to the promontory (LS) or maintained by arms through pelvic ligaments and/or muscles (TVM). Main outcome measures Functional outcomes (pelvic floor distress inventory [PFDI-20] as primary outcome); anatomical assessment (POP-Q), composite outcome of success; re-interventions for complications. Results A total of 220 out of 262 randomised patients have been followed at 4 years. PFDI-20 significantly improved in both groups and was better (but below the minimal clinically important difference) after LS (mean difference -7.2 points; 95% CI -14.0 to -0.05; P = 0.029). The improvement in quality of life and the success rate (LS 70%, 61-81% versus TVM 71%, 62-81%; hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.54; P = 0.75) were similar. POP-Q measurements did not differ, except for point C (LS -57 mm versus TVM -48 mm, P = 0.0093). The grade III or higher complication rate was lower after LS (2%, 0-4.7%) than after TVM (8.7%, 3.4-13.7%; hazard ratio 4.6, 95% CI 1.007-21.0, P = 0.049)). Conclusions Both techniques provided improvement and similar success rates. LS had a better benefit-harm balance with fewer re-interventions due to complications. TVM remains an option when LS is not feasible. Tweetable abstract At 4 years, Laparoscopic Sacropexy (LS) had a better benefit-harm balance with fewer re-interventions due to complications than Trans-Vaginal Mesh (TVM).