Vol. 45 (6): 1180-1185, November – December, 2019

doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.0141


Elad Leron 1, MonaToukan 2, Polina Schwarzman 1, Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia 3, Jacob Bornstein 2
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel; 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Galilee University Medical Center, Bar Ilan University, Nahariya, Israel; 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ospedale dei Bambini “Vittore Buzzi”, University of Milano, Milano, Italy


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 fulfi lled 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 signifi cant 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 signifi cant complications during the procedure or postoperative period were identifi ed 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.

Keywords: Pelvic Floor; Postoperative Complications; Surgical Mesh

[Full Text]