Search

Objective: The aim of this paper is to analyze the results obtained in pelvic floor surgery using a non-absorbable mesh in selected patients with risk factors of recurrent prolapse., Methods: Case series including a total of 76 patients who were surgically treated for severe genital prolapse from July 2005 to December 2009, with risk factors for recurrence of genital prolapse., Results: We detected 3 cases (6.8%) of symptomatic prolapse recurrence and 6 cases (13.6%) of prolapse of another compartment in the anterior Prolift® group. In the posterior Prolift® group there were no recurrences but there were 2 cases (10.52%) of prolapse of another compartment. In the total Prolift® group, there were 2 cases (16.6%) of symptomatic prolapse recurrence. As for de novo urgency, there were a total of 4 cases (5.33%), 3 in the anterior Prolift® group and 1 in the total Prolift® group. We did not detect any case of severe pain in the pelvis or mesh insertion points that required reoperation due to persistence., Conclusions: The use of mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery in selected patients with risk factors for recurrence is a good treatment option to prevent or attempt to reduce the recurrence or reoperation rates currently described.

Objectives: To evaluate the differences in results and complications between retropubic and obturator TVT., Methods: Descriptive prospective study including 245 patients who underwent retropubic TVT and 90 obturator TVT after the diagnosis of stress urinary incontinence by means of clinical history, physical examination and urodynamic tests. Continence outcomes and Intraoperative/post operative complications were recorded., Results: There were intraoperative complications in 12.65% of the retropubic TVT and 1.11% of the obturator TVT (p = 0.002). Immediate post operative complications appeared in 24.5% of the retropubic TVTs and 12.2% of the obturator TVTs: severe anemia (0.4 vs. 1.1%), inguinal pain (1.2 vs. 4.4%), hematoma (1.6 vs. 0%), urinary tract infection (12.2 vs. 4.4%), and acute urinary retention (8.9 vs. 2.2%) (p = 0.018). Complications during follow-up: partial exteriorization of the mesh (0.81 vs. 1.11%) and de novo urgency incontinence (9.38 vs. 4.44%) (p = 0.031). Post operative results were similar for both groups: 90.2% vs. 91.1% cured (p = 0.046), improvement in 8.2% vs. 6.7% (p = 0.18) and failure in 1.6% vs. 2.2% (p = 0.57)., Conclusions: The obturator TVT seems to be preferable to retropubic TVT because it offers a lower complications rate without differences in post operative results in the short-term.