Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 2, 2026
Transvaginal Mesh Insertion in the Ovine Model
Published on: July 27, 2017
Long-term outcome (5-10 years) after non absorbable mesh insertion compared to partially absorbable mesh insertion
Elad Leron1, Mona Toukan2, Polina Schwarzman1
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
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 fulfilled 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 significant complications during the procedure or postoperative period were identified 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 fi ndings, there is no superiority to either of the two studied mesh devices.
