Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 12, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
Published on: October 25, 2024
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy comparing polypropylene mesh with polyvinylidene fluoride mesh for pelvic organ prolapse:
Andreas Kavallaris1,2, Dimitrios Zygouris1
1Department of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, St. Luke's Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Aim:
Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) and compare the long-term outcomes and complication rates of polypropelene (PP) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), following up within a minimum of 12 months.
Methods:
This was a retrospective cohort study using patients who underwent LSCP for POP involving either PP or PVDF mesh between January 2011 and January 2018.
Results:
Our study focused on 172 women who underwent LSCP with mesh between January 2011 and January 2018. All procedures were successfully completed laparoscopically, and patients' baseline characteristics were not statistically different in the two groups. Between January 2011 and December 2014, we performed 82 cases of LSC, mainly using PP mesh. Over the last 5 years, since January 2015, we have used PVDF mesh for POP.
Conclusions:
LSCP using PVDF mesh was found to provide excellent anatomical and functional outcomes after a median follow-up duration of 41 months, compared with the PP group, which had a median follow-up duration of 54 months. Mesh infection and erosion rates in the PP group were significantly higher than those in the PVDF group. Additionally, rates of vaginal pain and discomfort were significantly lower in the PVDF group when compared with the PP group.
