Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare subjective and objective failure after posterior colporrhaphy with and without biologic graft augmentation.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review and telephone survey of patients who underwent a posterior colporrhaphy with and without biologic graft augmentation from 2005 to 2019. Patients who underwent a sacrocolpopexy, uterosacral ligament suspensions, or anterior sacrospinous ligament fixation were excluded. We determined objective, subjective, and composite failure rates.
RESULTS: Although 137 patients met eligibility criteria, 56 did not have valid contact information and, therefore, were excluded from the study. Of the 81 with valid contact information, 67 (83%) agreed to participate. There were 24 (36%) who had a native tissue repair and 43 (64%) who had biologic graft augmentation. Median telephone follow-up was 73 months (interquartile range [IQR], 36-117). Objective failure was similar for the biologic graft (37%) and the native tissue (42%) groups (P = 0.72). Subjective failure was twice as likely among the biologic graft group (60%) compared with the native tissue group (33%, P = 0.03). Patients with a biologic graft reported a median Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20 improvement of 31 (IQR, 8-33), while those with a native tissue repair reported a median improvement of 45 (IQR, 4-46). Overall, 78% were satisfied, 85% would recommend the procedure, and 84% reported symptomatic improvement. Reoperation occurred for 15% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Although biologic graft-augmented posterior colporrhaphy may be a safe and effective treatment option, the use of biologic grafts in the posterior compartment does not appear to confer a significant long-term benefit to traditional posterior colporrhaphy.