Abdominal Sacrohysteropexy using Proline mesh versus Mersilene tape in apical prolapse: A randomized clinical trial.

Abstract

<h4>Importance</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>compare between using Polyproline mesh and Mersilene tape in abdominal Sacrohysteropexy repairing apical prolapse stage ӀӀ or more.<h4>Study design</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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).<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.