BACKGROUND: A large number of studies focused on mesh application in the whole pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, but the comparative research on the Prolift mesh and polypropylene mesh (Gynemesh) in the whole pelvic floor reconstruction is rarely reported.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the Prolift mesh with Gynemesh in the whole pelvic floor reconstructive surgery.
METHODS: Totally 90 female patients with pelvic organ prolapse were enrolled, aged 40 to 80 years old, and were randomly divided into Prolift group and Gynemesh group, who were subjected to full pelvic floor reconstruction with Prolift mesh or Gynemesh, respectively. Afterwards, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative vaginal bleeding, hematoma, local paresthesia, urinary retention, overactive bladder, residual urine, postoperative incision infection, mesh exposure and postoperative quality of life were compared in two groups.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: No hematoma, local paresthesia, urinary retention and rejection reactions appeared in both two groups. The operation time, intraoperative blood residual urine, length of stay, catheter retention time had no significant differences between two groups. In the Prolift group, one case had a small amount of vaginal bleeding, one case had overactive bladder, five cases had mesh exposure at the anterior wall of vaginal, and two cases had light stress urinary incontinence; in the Gynemesh group, no vaginal bleeding, overactive bladder and stress urinary incontinence occurred, but four cases had mesh exposure at the anterior wall of vaginal. Additionally, the scores on the quality of life in the two groups at the last follow-up were significantly lower than those before surgery (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). These results demonstrate that both Prolift system and Gynemesh are safe and effective for the whole pelvic floor reconstruction, resulting in few postoperative complications. Patients can quickly recover, and obtain satisfactory outcomes.