Prolift盆底重建术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的疗效评价

目的评价应用Prolift盆底重建术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的临床效果。方法选择2007年10月至2009年10月江西省妇幼保健院妇科20例盆腔器官脱垂患者行Prolift盆底重建术,术后定期随访,以POP-Q分期作为客观疗效评价指标,以盆腔器官脱垂生活质量问卷（P-QOL）量表作为主观治愈指标。结果 20例患者的平均手术时间（78.6±30.2）min,平均术中出血量（155±65）ml,平均术后住院时间（4.3±1.8）d,术后2年客观治愈率95%。术后3个月、1年及2年P-QOL量表评分与术前比较,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论 Prolift盆底重建手术操作安全、微创,并发症少,术后生活质量明显改善,近中期疗效满意,值得临床推广。     

骶骨阴道/会阴固定术治疗中盆腔脱垂的初步探讨

目的探讨骶骨阴道/会阴固定术（SC/SCP）治疗中盆腔脱垂的中短期效果。方法于2005年10月至2010年8月解放军总医院第一附属医院妇产科对8例POP-QⅢ期以上中盆腔脱垂患者进行了经腹及腹腔镜的SC/SCP术,其中骶骨阴道固定术2例,骶骨阴道会阴固定术5例,骶骨宫颈固定术1例。合并压力性尿失禁（SUI）3例,分别进行了尿道中段悬吊术（TVT）及Burch术。采用盆底功能障碍性疾病症状问卷PFDI-20及盆底疾病生活质量影响问卷短表PFIQ-7随访。结果平均手术时间（177.66±31.38）min,平均出血量（355.28±211.18）ml。平均随访24.5个月（2～60个月）,8例患者的治愈率为100%。术后2个月发生阴道穹隆补片暴露2例,术后1年发生轻度SUI1例,术后2年发生右侧股疝1例,无盆腔器官脱垂复发。术后1年PFDI-20和PFIQ-7评分分别由术前的（95.29±17.42）分和（101.03±11.49）分减少为（16.60±4.50）分和（12.59±5.65）分（P〈0.01）。结论骶骨阴道/会阴固定术可为盆腔器官提供较为持久的支持,治疗中盆腔器官脱垂有较好的疗效。     

两种补片在全盆底重建术中应用的比较研究

目的比较两种补片（Prolift全盆底重建系统和Gynemesh聚丙烯补片）在全盆底重建术的应用情况及近期疗效,探讨更为适宜的全盆底重建手术方式。方法北京大学人民医院妇科在2007年1月-2008年4月间收治因盆腔多个部位缺陷的盆腔脏器脱垂行全盆底重建术患者31例。采用Prolift全盆底重建系统行全盆底重建术14例,Gynemesh聚丙烯补片行全盆底重建术17例。比较两组患者的一般资料、围手术期和随访情况,并进行统计学分析。结果两组的患者体重指数、绝经年龄和孕次比较,差异无显著性（P〉0．05）,Prolift组平均年龄为（63．29±9．39）岁,小于Gynemesh组的（69．35±5．16）岁（P=0．03）。Prolift组阴道前壁脱垂程度稍重于Gynemesh组（P〈0．05）。两组子宫脱垂和阴道后壁脱垂的程度比较,差异无显著性（P〉0．05）。两组患者出血量、最高体温、尿管留置天数、术后残余尿和住院时间比较,差异无显著性（P〉0．05）,手术时间Prolift组短于Gynemesh组（P〈0．05）。Prolift组随访率100％,平均随访时间（8．8±3．0）个月,1例（7．1％）术后6个月复查阴道前壁复发I期,1例（7．1％）出现后壁补片侵蚀。Gynemesh组随访率94．1％,平均随访时间（12．4±3．0）个月,4例（23．5％）患者复发,3例（17．6％）患者补片侵蚀。结论Prolift和Gy—nemesh两种补片均可用于全盆底重建,手术均安全可行。在近期疗效和并发症方面,Prolift要优于Gynemesh。     

Prolift和Avaulta补片前盆腔重建手术疗效分析

目的比较Gynecare Prolift TM盆底重建系统和Avaulta SoloTM骨盆底修复系统在前盆腔重建手术中的疗效和并发症,探讨更为适宜的前盆腔重建手术补片。方法回顾性分析2008年1月至2013年12月北京大学人民医院妇产科30例因重度前盆腔器官脱垂接受Prolift和Avaulta补片患者的临床资料,其中Prolift手术18例（Prolift组）,Avaulta手术12例（Avaulta组）,比较两组患者的术中及术后情况。结果两组患者术中均穿刺顺利,无脏器损伤及血肿发生。Prolift组平均出血量[（101.7±50.6）ml]与Avaulta组[（65.8±39.4）ml]比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。Prolift组术后新发压力性尿失禁（SUI）3例,补片侵蚀2例,阴道后壁或前壁脱垂复发8例,其中复发部位在治疗腔室者2例,在非治疗腔室者6例。Avaulta组术后无新发SUI,补片侵蚀2例,阴道后壁或前壁脱垂复发6例,其中复发部位在治疗腔室者3例,在非治疗腔室者3例。两组患者手术前后POP-Q分期比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论采用Gynecare Prolift TM盆底重建系统和Avaulta SoloTM骨盆底修复系统治疗重度前盆腔器官脱垂,可达到解剖学恢复,有一定的疗效,且并发症少。     

盆底重建手术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的临床研究

目的分析采用Prolift系统进行盆底重建手术治疗重度盆腔器官脱垂的疗效及并发症,评估该手术的有效性和安全性,并探讨盆底重建手术目前存在的争议。方法回顾性分析2007年4月至2011年4月南京军区福州总医院行盆底重建手术的183例重度盆腔器官脱垂患者（POP-Q分期Ⅲ～Ⅳ期）的术中情况、术后并发症、解剖学复位及生活质量。结果 183例患者的平均手术时间为（109.17±35.04）min,术中出血量为（135.36±70.16）ml,术后平均住院时间为（6.55±2.28）d。随访8～56个月,平均随访时间为（21.76±13.42）个月,随访率为95.08%（174/183）,术后21例（12.07%）出现补片排斥。解剖治愈率和主观治愈率均为98.28%（171/174）。结论盆底重建手术治疗重度盆腔器官脱垂效果好,并发症少,但由于应用时间尚短,仍需进一步临床研究及验证。     

盆底重建手术前后患者生活质量及盆底肌肌电变化初步探讨

目的了解盆腔器官脱垂患者行盆底重建术后生活质量的改变及盆底肌表面肌电情况。方法选择2007年9月至2008年1月于北京大学人民医院妇科盆腔器官脱垂接受盆底重建手术治疗的患者14例,手术前后检测患者的盆底肌表面肌电信号,并应用盆底功能障碍问卷PFDI-20、PFIQ-7及性生活质量问卷评估其生活质量。结果术前和术后PFDI-20、PFIQ-7评分比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);性生活质量评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术前及术后平均肌电值比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论盆腔器官脱垂行盆底重建术后患者的生活质量有所改善,但手术治疗只能恢复盆底解剖,不改变盆底肌肉的表面肌电情况。     

PROSIMA修复系统在盆腔器官脱垂患者中的应用及疗效分析

目的通过PROSIMA盆底重建手术治疗症状性Ⅱ～Ⅲ期盆腔器官脱垂（pelvic organ prolapse,POP）,旨在寻找一种治疗POP的理想手术方式。方法对2010年9月至2011年12月郑州大学第一附属医院32例症状性POP-QⅡ～Ⅲ期盆腔器官脱垂患者施行PROSIMA修复系统盆底重建手术,采用盆底功能障碍影响问卷简要版（PFIQ-7）和盆腔器官脱垂/尿失禁性功能问卷（PISQ-12）评价其效果,并分析手术并发症情况。结果 32例患者症状均缓解,手术成功率为100%,术中平均出血量为（40.4±13.7）ml,平均手术时间为（65.1±33.5）min,无血管、神经、膀胱及肠道损伤。平均随访时间为（10.1±9.2）个月（3～18个月）,无不适、感染及排异情况。2例补片暴露,对症治疗。无新发急迫性及压力性尿失禁。术后3个月PFIQ-7评分（21.4±21.2）分较术前[（69.1±21.6）分]明显降低（P〈0.05）。20例患者术后有性生活,术后3个月PISQ-12评分[（26.7±11.7）分]较术前[（81.3±12.6）分]明显降低（P〈0.05）。结论 PROSIMA修复系统盆底重建手术创伤小、出血少、安全可行,近期疗效好,但其远期疗效及患者性生活质量有待进一步随访。     

盆腔器官脱垂术后压力性尿失禁加重或新发的影响因素研究

目的探讨盆腔器官脱垂(POP)重建术后压力性尿失禁(SUI)加重或新发的影响因素。方法回顾性分析2008年1月至2017年12月因POP分期Ⅱ～Ⅳ期于北京大学第一医院行盆底重建手术并完成随访的613例患者的临床资料。根据POP患者术前、术后SUI的发生情况,分为术后SUI症状缓解组(270例)和进展组(99例)。采用多因素logistic回归分析术后SUI症状加重或新发的独立危险因素。结果 613例患者中,术前存在显性SUI症状314例(51.22%,314/613),其中192例(61.15%,192/314)术后症状消失,122例(38.85%,122/314)术后仍存在SUI症状,术后新发SUI 80例(26.76%,80/299);高龄、术前尿动力学检查提示最大尿道闭合压低、隐匿性SUI及尿道梗阻是盆底重建术后SUI加重或新发的独立危险因素(P 0.05);盆底重建手术联合抗尿失禁手术是术后SUI的保护因素(P 0.05)。结论对于存在术后SUI加重或新发高危因素的POP患者,术前应综合评估,制定合理的手术方案,必要时同时行抗尿失禁手术。     

盆底重建患者术前尿动力学结果的初步分析

目的:总结盆底重建患者的尿动力学特点,以尿动力学为切入点结合PFIQ-7问卷探讨盆底重建术与抗压力性尿失禁(SUI)手术的关系。方法:回顾性分析2012年7月—2014年1月因盆腔器官脱垂(POP)仅行Prolift全盆底重建术129例患者的临床资料,根据是否合并SUI分为POP+SUI组(26例)和POP组(103例),比较2组的尿动力学检查结果及不同年龄段的情况,同时对采用PFIQ-7问卷调查后60例患者(POP+SUI组13例,POP组47例)术前和术后6个月生活质量影响评分进行比较。结果:1POP+SUI组Aa的评分为(2.133±0.417)cm,高于POP组的(1.417±0.612)cm,差异有统计学意义(P=0.027)。22组尿动力学检查中仅尿道功能的最大尿道压均值和最大尿道闭合压异常比例差异有统计学意义(P=0.032;P=0.029)。32组患者各自术前与术后PFIQ-7评分总分差异均有统计学意义(P=0.021;P=0.047),术后2组各项PFIQ-7评分差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:建议在盆底重建术前行尿动力学检查,盆底重建同时行抗SUI手术需谨慎,需结合患者的年龄、尿动力学结果及患者的临床症状综合判断。     

改进盆底重建手术对下尿路症状的影响

目的探讨盆腔器官脱垂患者行改进盆底重建手术后排尿情况及下尿路症状的变化,以及术中合用经闭孔尿道中段无张力悬吊手术（TVT-O吊带及TVT-O网片吊带）对活动后漏尿及下尿路症状的影响。方法前瞻胜研究盆腔器官脱垂（POP）患者112例,合并或不合并下尿路症状,行改进盆底重建手术前、术后排尿状况及生活质量。结果①86例随访半年的患者中,术前84．9％（73／86）有下尿路症状,术后有下尿路症状者50％（43／86）,较术前症状改善或消失者76．7％（56／73）;47例随访达1年,下尿路症状改善者59．6％（28／47）。②盆底功能障碍调查问卷PFDI、UDI评分术前术后比较,有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。③单纯改进盆底重建术、改进盆底重建手术与TVT-O联合使用,均可改善下尿路症状（P〈0．05）,加用TVT-O效果优于单纯改进盆底重建术（P〈0．05）。结论①改进盆底重建手术对盆腔器官脱垂患者的下尿路症状有改善作用;②对于术前有活动后漏尿或隐匿性压力性尿失禁的患者,加用TVT-O手术比单纯改进盆底手术能更有效的治疗排尿症状。     

全盆底重建术后新发压力性尿失禁临床分析

目的通过对盆底重建手术后新发压力性尿失禁（de rlovo SUI）或SUI加重病例进行回顾性分析,探讨de novo SUI的高危因素。方法回顾性分析2007年1月至2011年2月间因Ⅲ期及以上盆腔器官脱垂（POP）在北京大学人民医院妇科接受Prolift系统全盆底重建术并按时随访的患者140例。根据患者术前、术后SUI的情况将患者分为3组：POP合并SUI组（29例）：术前POP合并SUI患者,其中19例行Kelly手术,10例行TVT-O术;de rlovo SUI组（27例）：术前没有尿失禁,术后新发压力性尿失禁患者;对照组（84例）：术前、术后均无客观SUI。比较各组POP—Q值及尿动力学参数,logistic回归分析高危因素。结果①denovoSUI发生率为24．32％（27／111）,其中9例术前合并主观SUI。术前有主观SUI患者术后出现客观SUI的比例是56．25％（9／16）,明显高于术前无主观SUI患者（14．88％,18／121;P〈O．05）;②POP合并SUI组、derio-voSUI组的Aa点平均值高于对照组（Pd0．01）;denovoSUI组的Ba点平均值（4．91）明显高于POP合并SUI组（2．34）和对照组（2．88,Pd0．05）;③P（）P合并SUI组的最大尿流率（Qmax）明显高于对照组（P〈0．01）,derlOVOSUI组Qrllax虽也高于对照组,但差异无统计学意义（P〉O．05）。POP合并sUI组和denovoSUI组最大尿道闭合压（MUPP）均显著低于对照组（P〈O．01）。④Kelly组中SUI复发率（42．11％,8／19）高于TVT—O组（20．00％,2／lO;Pd0．05）。⑤logistic回归结果显示,术前主观SUI（P=0．00,OR4．33～7．52）,Aa点≥2（P生0．01,0R1．46～1．98）,MUPP〈~38cmH20（P=0．00,OR1．73～3．08）为denovoSUI的高危因素。结论①Aa位置低是SUI的高危因素,而当Ba值大即膀胱脱垂明显时,可能掩盖SUI症状,有可能出现术后新发尿失禁;②术前有主观尿失禁症状,MUPP≤38cmHzO是deD．OVOSUI的高危因素;③Kelly术抗尿失禁效果欠佳,建议选择TVT-O术治疗或预防尿失禁。     

Prolift术对盆腔器官脱垂患者盆底肌力的影响

目的：评估Prolift手术前后盆腔器官脱垂（POP）患者盆底肌力的变化情况。方法：选择2011年3月—2013年4月于上海同济大学附属同济医院入院治疗的POP Ⅱ～Ⅳ度的患者37例,采用指检法和表面肌电图法测量并评价Prolift手术前后患者盆底肌力的变化情况,并与盆底功能正常者进行比较。结果：Prolift手术可有效改善患者的POP状态,术后36例患者POP-Q分度明显降低,达到解剖复位;术后6个月盆底肌力的Oxford分级、盆底肌最大收缩电压和收缩持续时间均较术前有明显提高（P=0.000）,但均低于盆底功能正常者（P=0.000）。结论：Prolift手术可恢复盆腔器官的解剖结构,一定程度上可加强盆底肌力。     

Short Term Impact on Female Sexual Function of Pelvic Floor Reconstruction with the Prolift Procedure

IntroductionThe Prolift system is an effective and safe procedure using mesh reinforcement for vaginal reconstruction of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), but its effect on sexual function is unclear.AimTo evaluate the impact of transvaginal pelvic reconstruction with Prolift on female sexual function at 6 months post‐operatively.MethodsThirty‐three sexually active women who underwent Prolift mesh pelvic floor reconstruction for symptomatic POP were evaluated before and 6 months after surgery. Their sexual function was assessed by using the short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ‐12) before and after surgery. The quality of life was also evaluated with the short forms of the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI‐6) and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ‐7) as a control for efficacy of the procedure. The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system was used to evaluate the degree of prolapse.Main Outcome MeasuresPISQ‐12 scores at 6 months post‐operatively.ResultsThe total PISQ‐12 score decreased from 29.5 ± 9.0 to 19.3 ± 14.7 (P < 0.001), indicating worsening of sexual function 6 months post‐operatively. The behavioral, physical, and partner‐related domains of PISQ‐12 were each significantly reduced (5.2 ± 3.7 vs. 2.9 ± 3.7, P = 0.016; 15.4 ± 4.7 vs. 10.4 ± 8.6, P = 0.001; 8.9 ± 3.8 vs. 6.4 ± 5.5, P = 0.01, respectively). UDI‐6 and IIQ‐7 scores were significantly improved at the 6‐month follow‐up, as was anatomic recovery. Of the 33 subjects, 24 (73%) had worse sexual function 6 months after the procedure.ConclusionThe Prolift procedure provided an effective anatomic cure of POP, but it had an adverse effect on sexual function at 6 months after surgery. Su TH, Lau HH, Huang WC, Chen SS, Lin TY, Hsieh CH, and Yeh CY. Short term impact on female sexual function of pelvic floor reconstruction with the Prolift procedure.     

Prolift网片联合尿道中段悬吊治疗POP或合并SUI患者的近期疗效

目的:探讨全阴道修复网片(total vaginal mesh,TVM)即Gynecare Prolift网片修复系统及联合经闭孔无张力阴道吊带(tensiongfree vaginal tape-obtutor,TVT-O)尿道中段悬吊手术治疗盆腔器官脱垂(pelvic organ prolapse,POP)或合并压力性尿失禁(stress urinary incontinence,SUI)的近期疗效。方法:选择Ⅱ度以上子宫和(或)阴道壁脱垂患者24例,其中本次手术前已切除子宫5例,术中同时切除子宫12例,保留子宫7例。16例用全盆底修复网片(total Prolift),8例用前盆修复网片(anterior Prolift);10例因合并压力性尿失禁同时行TVT-O尿道中段悬吊术。结果:24例患者术中均无严重并发症发生,3例(12.5%)出血量超过500ml;术后随访12～20个月,1例至术后10个月时发现阴道壁网片侵蚀(4.2%,1/24),经门诊4次修剪好转;24例患者均无复发。结论:用Prolift盆底修复网片系统进行盆底重建术,手术安全、易行、微创,近期疗效肯定;合并SUI者同时使用TVT-O不增加手术难度和并发症的发生率。     

Continuing Medical Education: Urogenital Complaints and Female Sexual Dysfunction (Part 2) (CME)

IntroductionFemale sexual dysfunction (FSD) is common in women with urogenital disorders that occur as a result of pelvic floor muscle and fascial laxity.AimProvide a comprehensive review of FSD as it relates to common urogenital disorders including pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and to discuss the impact of the surgical repair of these disorders on sexual function.MethodsSystematic search of the medical literature using a number of related terms including FSD, POP, SUI, surgical repair, graft augmentation, complications, and dyspareunia.Main Outcome MeasuresReview of the medical literature to identify the relation between FSD and common urogenital disorders in women and to describe appropriate treatment strategies to improve quality of life (QOL) and sexual function.ResultsFSD is common in women with POP and SUI. Treatment options for POP and SUI include behavioral, pharmacological, and surgical methods which can also affect sexual function.ConclusionsSexual dysfunction is a common, underestimated complaint in women with POP and SUI. Treatment should be tailored toward improving sexual function and QOL. Surgical correction is generally beneficial but occasionally can result in negative alterations in sexual function. Patient selection and methods used for surgical repair are important factors in determining anatomical and functional success. Wehbe SA, Kellogg S, and Whitmore K. Urogenital complaints and female sexual dysfunction (part 2).     

Optimal primary minimally invasive treatment for patients with stress urinary incontinence and symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: Tension free slings with colporrhaphy,or Prolift with the tension free midurethral sling?

Objective

Comparison of procedures in patients with concomitant stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) was performed. Tension free vaginal tape (TVT) or transobturator tape (TOT) with colporrhaphy was compared with fixed mesh (Prolift™) applied with a tension free suburethral sling.

Study design

A total of 76 women with both SUI and POP were evaluated. TVT or TOT with colporrhaphy was performed in 39 patients and Prolift™ with the midurethral sling in 37 patients. Anatomy, symptoms and quality of life (QOL) were evaluated prior to, and at 1, 6 and 12 months after surgery.

Results

Continence was achieved in both groups equally (p = 0.57). The better anatomic outcome regarding the correction of POP was in the Prolift™ group but with a higher rate of additional procedures and complications. QOL was better in patients with grade III–IV POP corrected with Prolift™ (p = 0.05) and equal in both groups with grade I–II POP during the follow-up. Impairment of sexual life was present in both groups before surgery. After surgery, there was no improvement in sexual life regardless of correction of both anatomy and incontinence.

Conclusion

Both procedures are effective and safe. TVT or TOT performed with colporrhaphy looks a better primary choice for grade II POP and SUI. Results for grade III–IV POP and SUI are better with the Prolift™ with the sling. Sexual life could not be improved effectively with these types of surgery.     

"协和"全盆底重建术治疗重度盆腔器官脱垂的多中心前瞻性研究

目的 探讨"协和"全盆底重建术治疗重度盆腔器官脱垂(POP)的疗效及对患者生命质量和性生活质量的影响.方法 自2006年6月至2008年12月,在全国8家医疗单位开展多中心前瞻性研究,包括北京协和医院、复旦大学附属妇产科医院、北京大学第一医院、北京大学第三医院、第三军医大学西南医院、四川大学华西第二医院、北京大学人民医院、北京妇产医院,共277例POP患者参加本研究,所有患者术前均为Ⅲ度或Ⅳ度.总结研究的中期结果,通过术后随访患者的POP分度情况了解POP的解剖学改善情况.通过比较患者术前、术后盆底功能影响问卷简表(PFIQ-7)和盆底不适调查表简表(PFDI-20)评分,评估手术对患者生命质量的影响;通过比较术前、术后POP-尿失禁性生活问卷(PISQ)评分,评价手术对患者性生活质量的影响.结果 中位随访时间14个月(6～28个月),23例患者术后复发,复发率为8.3%(23/277).19例(6.9%,19/277)患者在随访中发现网片暴露或侵蚀.术后新发的尿失禁为18例(6.5%,18/277).277例患者术前、术后6个月、术后1年的PFIQ-7评分分别为(66.9±65.1)、(7.2±26.7)、(7.6±31.6)分,PFDI-20评分分别为(75.8±49.0)、(17.4±25.2)、(15.0±22.6)分,术后较术前生命质量评分显著降低,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.01).术前、术后6个月、术后1年的PSIQ评分分别为(76.6±15.4)、(75.5±14.5)、(73.6±12.6)分,术前与术后比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),手术对性生活质量无明显影响;但术后9例(11%,9/80)患者新发性交痛.结论 "协和"全盆底重建术是治疗重度POP一种有效、安全的手术,可以明显改善患者的生命质量,与传统的全盆底重建术疗效相当.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate clinical efficiency and quality-of-life outcomes in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse by the "Xiehe" pelvic floor reconstruction surgery. Methods From Jun. 2006 to Dec. 2008, 277 severe pelvic organ prolapse patients with stage Ⅲ to Ⅳ from 8 hospitals in China were enrolled in this prospective study. Pelvic organ prolapse quantitative examination (POP-Q) and anatomic improvement in these patients after surgery were analyzed in this interim study. Comparisons of pelvic floor impact questionnaire-short form 7 (PFIQ-7) and pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20 (PFDI-20) in these patients before and after surgery was used to evaluate quality of life. Comparison of pelvic organ prolapse-urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ) in these patients before and after surgery was used to evaluate quality of sexual life. Results With a median follow-up of 14. 0 months (6 -28 months),twenty-three patients showed recurrent prolapse (8. 3%, 23/277), and anatomical success ( ＜ stage 2 in the treated compartment) was 91.7% (254/277). In this series, mesh exposure or erosion rate was 6. 9% (19/277). The postoperative de novo stress incontinence rate was 6. 5% (18/277). The scores for PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20, and its subscales were significantly improved, the scores of before treatment were lower than those after treatment (P ＜0. 01 ). And there was no significant difference in the average score of PISQ before and after the surgery (76. 6 ± 15.4 versus 75.5 ± 14. 5 versus 73.6 ± 12. 6, P ＞0. 05 ), but the rate of de novo dyspareunia was 11% (9/80). Conclusions "Xiehe" pelvic floor reconstruction surgery was safe and efficacy in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. It could improve quality of life remarkably with less cost when compared with the traditional total pelvic floor reconstruction surgery.