Abstract: Objective：To compare the clinical curative effect and the difference of compications between the Prolift (Prolift Pelvic Floor) and AMS (AMS Peep Connection Tool) two pelvic floor repair system for treatment of women with pelvic organ prolapse (pelvic organ prolapse, POP). Methods: Sixty patients with POP recruited from Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from November 2010 to June 2013. All patients were randomly divided into Prolift group and AMS group, with 29 patients in Prolift group and 31 patients in AMS group. The clinical efficacy and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: No significant differences were found between the two groups in operating time, intraoperative bleeding and postoperative high body temperature, urinary canal indwelling time and residual urine volume and duration (P＞0.05). In addition, we did not find any differences between the groups in voiding dysfunction, perineum belly bulge, the underlying net exposure, the vaginal wall prolapse and other postoperative complications. The morbidity of pain and poor quality of life were significantly higher in Prolift group compared with the AMS Group（P＜0.05）. Conclusions: Both Prolift and AMS systems can achieve the reconstruction and recovery of anatomy of pelvic floor, but AMS has an advantage over Prolift.