Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Comparing mesh and no-mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse
By Coskun ES et al.·2026·Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology·View original on Europe PMC →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparative Outcomes of Mesh-Based and Mesh-Free Laparoscopic Uterus-Preserving Pectopexy for Apical Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Plain-English summary
This study looked at two different surgical methods for treating a condition called apical pelvic organ prolapse, which affects how pelvic organs are supported. It involved 81 patients who either had a surgery using mesh or one without mesh between 2021 and 2024. Both methods helped improve the support of pelvic organs and sexual function, but the mesh method provided better support in certain areas, while the mesh-free method resulted in a longer vaginal length. The surgery using mesh took longer to perform, but both methods had low rates of complications and recurrences. Overall, both techniques were effective, but the choice between them should be based on individual patient needs.
Abstract
<h4>Aim</h4>To compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of mesh-based and mesh-free laparoscopic uterus-preserving pectopexy in patients with apical pelvic organ prolapse: METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 81 patients who underwent either mesh-based (n = 41) or mesh-free (n = 40) laparoscopic pectopexy between 2021 and 2024. Patients were evaluated for operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, anatomical success based on the POP-Q system, sexual function using the PISQ-12 questionnaire, and postoperative complications. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 6 weeks and 1 year for anatomical outcomes (POP-Q) and at 3 months and 1 year for sexual function (PISQ-12).<h4>Results</h4>Both techniques significantly improved POP-Q parameters and PISQ-12 scores. The mesh group demonstrated superior apical and posterior support (C, Ap, and Bp points), while the mesh-free group showed longer total vaginal length. Operative time was significantly longer in the mesh-free group. Sexual function improved in both groups, with a greater early improvement in the mesh group, though differences leveled at 1 year. Complication and recurrence rates were low and comparable between groups.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Mesh-based and mesh-free pectopexy both offer effective anatomical correction and functional recovery in apical prolapse surgery. Mesh-based techniques provide stronger apical support, while mesh-free approaches may be preferable for patients avoiding synthetic implants. Individualized surgical planning remains essential.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on Europe PMC: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41856695