Comparison of two trocar-guided trans-vaginal mesh systems for repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Non-absorbable and partially absorbable mesh demonstrated similar outcome rates at 12 months. The risk of reoperation was lower for partially absorbable mesh. The mesh exposure rate was significantly lower for the partially absorbable mesh group compared with the non-absorbable mesh group.

Partially absorbable mesh or native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial

“…The difference in the exposure rate may be the fact that the mesh used in this study was partially absorbable, leaving a smaller amount of non-absorbable mesh behind, and it had larger pore sizes (4.0 mm), lower density (28 g/ m 2 ), and a reduced surface area, which may have led to a reduction in fibrotic reaction around the individual mesh fibers, which could have resulted in a more physiological integration of the mesh [ 19 , 27 ]. This lower exposure rate may also be a result of the increased experience of the participating surgeons in this study, as all surgeons were fully trained [ 28 ].…”

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

“…The acute and chronic response of the tissues against the inserted foreign body is a major cause of those complications. The smaller mass of the mesh in the vagina will decrease the intensity of the inflammatory process, and will reduce the frequency and intensity of complications (6,7).…”

“…There is also a difference in the size of the pores: 2.5mm in a non-absorbable mesh compared to 3.5mm in the partially absorbable product. Large pores allow better tissue growth into the mesh and prevent the development of infections that are not accessible to macrophages ( 6 , 7 ). Different minimally invasive mesh insertion techniques were developed and reported to have successful results ( 9 , 10 ).…”