• Eliana Duarte Lopes, Nucélio Luiz de Barros Moreira Lemos, Silvia da Silva Carramão, Jacqueline Leme Lunardelli, José Maria Cordeiro Ruano, Tsutomu Aoki, and Antonio Pedro Flores Auge.
• Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. lopes-ed@uol.com.br
• Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Apr 1; 21 (4): 389-94.

Introduction And HypothesisThe objective of this study was to compare the anatomical and quality of life outcomes of a posterior polypropylene mesh kit versus sacrospinous ligament fixation at the time of hysterectomy for the treatment of uterine prolapse.MethodsThirty-two women aged 50 to 75 years with stage III or IV (pelvic organ prolapse quantification system/International Continence Society) uterine prolapse were randomized into two groups (group 1: polypropylene mesh, Nazca R, Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina; group 2: sacrospinous ligament fixation).ResultsAt 12-month follow-ups, we observed the same anatomical results in both groups. The median operating time, intraoperative blood loss, and perioperative complications were also equal in both groups. There were five cases (35.71%) of mesh erosion, and prolapse of the anterior vaginal wall (cystocele) occurred in 50% of the patients.ConclusionsSimilar anatomical and quality of life outcomes were observed with polypropylene mesh and sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Complication rate was higher in the mesh group.

17 keywords...

hide…