ObjectiveTo compare the conventional repair, Prolift system and Gynemesh system in total pelvic floor reconstruction. MethodsForty patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), who were treated in our department from March 2009 to March 2011, were included in the present study. Fifteen cases were in the conventional repair group, 10 in the Prolift system surgery, and the other 15 in the Tongshi group (revised total pelvic floor construction with Gynemesh).The pre-,peri-operative data and follow-up results were compared between the 3 groups.ResultsThe body mass index, menopause age, pregnant times and the degrees of prolapses were comparable in the 3 groups (P>0.05). The degrees of anterior and posterior vaginal proplase and uterus proplase were not significantly different between the 3 group (P>0.05). The intro-operative blood loss, highest body temperature, residual urine, operation time, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the 3 groups (P>0.05).The follow-up rate was 100% for the Prolift group, with a mean time of (5.8±2.0) months; one case developed erosion in the anterior vagina1 wall and one had Ⅰ stress urinary incontinence.The follow-up rate was 93.3% in the Gyenmesh group, with a mean time of (9.1±2.0) months; one case had chylous ascites after whole pelvis suspension and one had recurrent anterior vaginal proplase POP-Q Ⅱ.The follow-up rate was 100% in the classical group, with a mean time of (9.1±5.0) months; anterior and posterior vaginal proplase POP-Q Ⅱ were each found in one case.ConclusionConventional repair, Prolift system and Gynemesh system are all safe and suitable for total pelvic floor reconstruction, and they have no difference concerning the short-term clinical outcomes and complications.