Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
Published on: October 25, 2024
Abdominal Sacrohysteropexy using Proline mesh versus Mersilene tape in apical prolapse: A randomized clinical trial
M Elsibai Anter1, H Elsayed Ellakwa1, Z Fouad Sanad1
1Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Menoufia, Egypt.
Importance:
uterine preservation is increasingly a common demand in surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. Using Proline mesh in surgical repair of prolapse may have negative drawbacks.
Objective:
compare between using Polyproline mesh and Mersilene tape in abdominal Sacrohysteropexy repairing apical prolapse stage ӀӀ or more.
Study Design:
This RCT study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Menoufia and Ain Shams university hospitals, Egypt). Eligible population included women planned Sacrohysteropexy for uterine prolapse ≥ stage 2 assigned to two groups: Mesh group (n = 38), underwent Sacrohysteropexy with polyproline mesh, and Tape group (n = 38), underwent Sacrohysteropexy using Mersilene tape.
Results:
High statistically significant difference between TAPE group and MESH group concerning hysteropexy time was 50.4 min in TAPE group vs 90.6 min in MESH group (p < 0.001), need for post operative analgesia was14 in TAPE group vs 27 in MESH group (p < 0.005). The mean hospital stay was 2.8 days in TAPE group vs 5.2days in MESH group (p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Using Mersilene tape in Sacrohysteropexy is a safe alternative to Polyproline Mesh with comparable efficacy with less complications. Tape is easier as it needs less dissection area for sacral fixation so less injury incidence.
