Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 Feb 28;46(1):112-8.
doi: 10.3349/ymj.2005.46.1.112.

A comparison of different pelvic reconstruction surgeries using mesh for pelvic organ prolapse patients

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A comparison of different pelvic reconstruction surgeries using mesh for pelvic organ prolapse patients

Sang Wook Bai et al. Yonsei Med J. .

Abstract

This study was carried out in order to compare the effects in different surgeries using mesh in pelvic organ prolapse patients whose leading points were C. Thirty-nine patients were categorized into 3 groups: group A pelvic reconstruction with hysterectomy; group B hysterectomy prior to pelvic reconstruction; and group C pelvic reconstruction with uterus preserved. At first visit, POP-Q stage was determined, and age, BMI, admission days, operation time, post-operative stage and complications were observed and results were analyzed and compared. All patients who were operated upon converted to stage one month following the operation, and no further change was observed except in one patient. Group admission days were not significantly different, but tended to be lower in group C. Group average operation times between 'group A and B' and 'group A and C' were statistically different. No significant difference was observed in post-operative complications between the groups, but 3 members of group A developed erosion, whereas no erosion occurred in groups B and C. Pelvic reconstruction using mesh is a highly efficient method of treating pelvic organ prolapse. Improvements in stage and post-operative complications were not significantly different in the groups. However, uteropexy showed a shorter operation time, fewer admission days, and less erosion due to mesh than conventional pelvic reconstruction with hysterectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Bai SW. Clinical evaluation of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) Korean Urogynecol J. 1999;1:66–71.
    1. Costantini E, Lombi R, Micheli C, Parziani S, Porena M. Colposacropexy with Gore-Tex mesh in marked vaginal and uterovaginal prolapse. Eur Urol. 1998;34:111–117. - PubMed
    1. Beck RP. Pelvic relaxational prolapse. In: Kase NG, Weingold AB, editors. Principles and practice of clinical gynecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1983. pp. 677–685.
    1. Olsen AL, Smith VG, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–506. - PubMed
    1. Kim JH. Non-surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Korean Urogynecol J. 1999;1:72–77.

Publication types