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
. 2011 Feb;22(2):137-43.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-010-1249-3. Epub 2010 Aug 27.

Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up

Susan B Tate et al. Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Feb.

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the 5-year surgical outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy among subjects randomized to receive polypropylene mesh or cadaveric fascia lata.

Methods: All 100 subjects from the original randomized clinical trial were eligible. Primary outcome was objective anatomic failure: any pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) point ≥ - 1. Secondary outcome was clinical failure-presence of bulge or prolapse symptoms and either a POP-Q point C ≥ ½ TVL or any POP-Q point >0-and interim surgical re-treatment. Wilcoxon tests and Fisher's exact test were performed.

Results: Fifty-eight subjects returned for 5-year follow-up-29 mesh and 29 fascia. Objective anatomic success rates were: mesh, 93% (27/29) and fascia, 62% (18/29) (p = 0.02). Clinical success rates were: mesh, 97% (28/29) and fascia, 90% (26/29) (p = 0.61).

Conclusions: Polypropylene mesh was superior to cadaveric fascia lata using objective anatomic outcomes. Success rates of mesh and fascia were comparable using a clinical definition that combined symptoms with anatomic measures.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;185(6):1388-95 - PubMed
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;114(3):600-609 - PubMed
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Aug;189(2):372-7; discussion 377-9 - PubMed
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;193(1):53-7 - PubMed
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;106(1):29-37 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources