ABSTRACT

Objectives:

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of non-absorbable and partially absorbable meshes for the reinforcement of pelvic floor reconstruction.

Study design:

Patients with advanced pelvic floor prolapse were enrolled to this study and had either non-absorbable or partially absorbable mesh implants for reinforcement of pelvic floor reconstraction. Patients were evaluated at the end of the 1st post-operative months and interviewed at the study conclusion.

Results:

Of the 236 women enrolled to the study, 213 (90.2%) were available for evaluation. Nonabsorbable mesh implants were used in 109 women (51.1%) and partially absorbable mesh implants were used in 104 women (48.9%). Median follow-up for non-absorbable mesh patients was 4.6±1.0 years and for the partially absorbable mesh, 2.3±1.9 years. At the end of the first postoperative month, pain was the only subjective statistically significant parameter: 33.3% in the non-absorbable mesh group versus 10.7% in the partially absorbable mesh group (p<0.002). Similarly, the percentage of mesh felt at vaginal palpation was distinctly higher in the nonabsorbable mesh group than the partially absorbable mesh group (100% vs. 29%, respectively) (p<0.04). All other findings were similar with the 2 study groups.

Conclusions:

Partially absorbed mesh implant is safe and effective and has less early postoperative complications than the non-absorbable mesh implant with pelvic floor reconstruction reinforcements.