Non-absorbable and partially-absorbable mesh during pelvic organ prolapse repair: A comparison of clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of non-absorbable and partially-absorbable mesh intervention in pelvic organ prolapse.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent transvaginal mesh operation for anterior and apical vaginal prolapse at a single tertiary center from January 2007 to December 2013.

RESULTS

The group treated with partially-absorbable mesh showed better objective surgical outcomes than those treated with non-absorbable mesh in 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Recurrence rate was higher in the group with partially-absorbable mesh than in the non-absorbable mesh group, without any statistically significant difference. Mesh exposure were similar in both groups. Vaginal erosion, dyspareunia and de novo stress urinary incontinence were more common in the non-absorbable group without statistical significance. Buttock pain was more common but not significant in the partially-absorbable group. There were no significant differences in quality-of-life scores after mesh operation between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with partially-absorbable mesh showed better objective surgical outcomes with similar postoperative complications than those treated with non-absorbable mesh.