Long-term outcome (5-10 years) after non absorbable mesh insertion compared to partially absorbable mesh insertion for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair

• Autor(a) principal: Leron,Elad
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: Toukan,Mona, Schwarzman,Polina, Mastrolia,Salvatore Andrea, Bornstein,Jacob
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000601180
• topic: Pelvic Floor; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Mesh

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate long-term (5-10 years) outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical (MIS) kit insertion with Prolift® (non-absorbable) mesh compared to the use of Prolift M® (partially absorbable), for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair. Study design: In this retrospective study we compared women undergoing MIS kit Prolift® insertion (n=90) vs. Prolift M® insertion (n=79) for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair between 2006 and 2012 at our Institution. A number of 169 women fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Results: During the study period 128 women (76%) completed full follow-up; of them 58 (73%) following MIS kit Prolift® insertion, and 70 (88%) following MIS kit ProliftM® insertion. There was no significant difference between the Prolift® and Prolift M® regarding parity (3.04 vs. 2.88, p=0.506), presence of hypertension (24.1% vs. 39.1%, p=0.088), diabetes mellitus (3.4% vs. 11.6%, p=0.109), or urinary stress incontinence (39.7% vs. 47.1%, p=0.475). All participants had been diagnosed with POP grade 3 or 4 before the procedure. No significant complications during the procedure or postoperative period were identified in the study groups. The follow-up period was at least five years in duration for both groups. Both groups were comparable according to questionnaires focused on function and satisfaction. Conclusion: Patients undergoing MIS kit Prolift® and Prolift M® insertion for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair had comparable early and late postoperative outcomes. No differences in patient's function and satisfaction between the two groups were identified. According to our findings, there is no superiority to either of the two studied mesh devices.