Conventional repair, prolift system and gynemesh system in total pelvic floor reconstruction: A comparison
10.3724/SP.J.1008.2012.00802
- Author:
Ming-juan XU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Total pelvic floor reconstruction;
pelvic organ prolapse;
prolift;
gynemesh
- From:
Academic Journal of Second Military Medical University
2012;33(7):802-804
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the conventional repair, Prolift system and Gynemesh system in total pelvic floor reconstruction. Methods Forty patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), who were treated in our department from March 2009 to March 2011, were included in the present study. Fifteen cases were in the conventional repair group, 10 in the Prolift system surgery, and the other 15 in the Tongshi group (revised total pelvic floor construction with Gynemesh). The pre-, peri-operative data and follow-up results were compared between the 3 groups. Results The body mass index, menopause age, pregnant times and the degrees of prolapses were comparable in the 3 groups (P>0. 05). The degrees of anterior and posterior vaginal proplase and uterus proplase were not significantly different between the 3 group (P>0. 05). The intro-operative blood loss, highest body temperature, residual urine, operation time, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the 3 groups (P>0. 05). The follow-up rate was 100% for the Prolift group, with a mean time of (5. 8 + 2. 0) months; one case developed erosion in the anterior vaginal wall and one had I stress urinary incontinence. The follow-up rate was 93.3% in the Gyenmesh group, with a mean time of (9. 1 + 2. 0) months; one case had chylous ascites after whole pelvis suspension and one had recurrent anterior vaginal proplase POP-Q Tl • The follow-up rate was 100% in the classical group, with a mean time of (9. 1 + 5. 0) months; anterior and posterior vaginal proplase POP-Q Tl were each found in one case. Conclusion Conventional repair, Prolift system and Gynemesh system are all safe and suitable for total pelvic floor reconstruction, and they have no difference concerning the short-term clinical outcomes and complications.
