Efficacy of the mini mesh for reducing prolapse recurrence: comparison of two implant positioning methods

Ayellet Neumann Koren, Menahem Neuman, Jacob Bornstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to compare the postoperative complications, cure rates, and patient satisfaction in mini mesh implantation with and without anterior arm fixation to the para vesical fascia for the re-enforcement of the anterior pelvic floor compartment. Materials and Methods: Thirty female patients diagnosed with symptomatic stage 3 pelvic organ prolapse (POP) of the anterior pelvic floor compartment were operated on by a single surgeon, using the SERATOM PA MR MN mini mesh graft (Serag-Wiessner, Naila, Germany). In thirty other women, serving as a control group, the anterior arms were positioned without fixation, while in the study group anterior arm fixation was added. Surgery complications, patients’ satisfaction 3 months after the surgery, POP grade and volume of prolapse, and subjective variables such as a feeling of bulge, pain, and dyspareunia were compared between the two groups. Results: Significant anatomical and functional improvements were documented in both groups with respect to the objective (p<0.05) and subjective (p<0.01) criteria, except for pain, dyspareunia, and fecal incontinence. All patients reported high satisfaction. Conclusion: Surgery with and without fixation led to significant improvement.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)43-49
Number of pages7
JournalPelviperineology
Volume40
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the International Society for Pelviperineology / Pelviperineology published by Galenos Publishing House.

Funding

MN is affiliated with FEMSelect, Memic, and OORO.

FundersFunder number
OORO

    Keywords

    • Mini mesh
    • Pelvic floor reconstruction
    • Pelvic organ prolapse

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy of the mini mesh for reducing prolapse recurrence: comparison of two implant positioning methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this