Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
This study doesn't relate to pets or animals
By Sato H et al.·2026·Department of Urology, Japan·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Compartment-Specific Outcomes of Single-Mesh and Double-Mesh Reinforcement in Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Plain-English summary
This study looked at two different types of mesh used during a specific surgery called laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, which is done to fix pelvic organ prolapse in women. Researchers compared single-mesh reinforcement, which uses mesh in either the front or back, with double-mesh reinforcement, which uses mesh in both areas. They found that both types of mesh had similar success rates in keeping the reinforced area intact over time, but the single-mesh group had a much higher risk of problems in areas that weren't reinforced. This group also faced more reoperations and reported worse overall satisfaction, even though complications related to the mesh itself were rare. In the end, while both methods worked similarly for the reinforced area, single-mesh reinforcement was linked to more issues and a need for further surgeries.
Abstract
<h4>Objective</h4>To compare long-term anatomical, subjective, and surgical outcomes of single-mesh and double-mesh reinforcement for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) by focusing on compartment-specific failure and reoperation.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort study.<h4>Setting</h4>Single tertiary referral center.<h4>Participants</h4>Women (n = 897) who underwent LSC-based apical prolapse surgery between 2015 and 2024.<h4>Interventions</h4>Patients were classified according to whether single-mesh (anterior-only or posterior-only mesh; n = 560) or double-mesh (anterior and posterior mesh; n = 337) reinforcement was performed during the index surgery.<h4>Results</h4>The primary outcome was time to anatomical failure (AF) in the reinforced compartment (n = 54 patients). Secondary outcomes included AF in nonreinforced compartments, subjective failure (SF), composite failure (CF), reoperation for recurrent prolapse, and mesh-related complications. The AF-free survival rate in the double-mesh group was similar to that in the single-mesh group (92.6% vs. 92.7%; log-rank p = 0.95). The mesh configuration was not associated with AF in the reinforced compartment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-1.49). AF in nonreinforced compartments occurred exclusively in the single-mesh group. Firth's penalized Cox regression demonstrated a substantially increased risk of AF in nonreinforced compartments associated with single-mesh reinforcement (adjusted HR, 38.13; 95% CI, 3.70-86,989.61). Reoperation in nonreinforced compartments was limited to the single-mesh group (adjusted HR, 38.23; 95% CI, 3.78-5269.73). CF and SF were more frequent in the single-mesh group. The single-mesh group had a higher risk of SF (adjusted HR, 4.88; 95% CI, 1.19-20.0). Mesh-related complications were infrequent and comparable between groups.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Reinforced compartment durability after LSC was similar between groups. Single-mesh reinforcement was associated with higher risks of failure and reoperation, which led to inferior composite and subjective outcomes without increased mesh-related complications.
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/42019577