Cite this article
Comparison between four- and six-arm pelvic organ polypropylene mesh implantation for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse
1 Special Metro Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetric, Adana, Turkey
2 University of Health Sciences, Numune Teaching and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Adana, Turkey
Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018 , 45(3), 414–418; https://doi.org/10.12891/ceog4180.2018
Published: 10 June 2018
Purpose: The incidence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) increases with age, and the frequency of POP surgery has increased with time. The purposes of POP treatment are to restore pelvic anatomy and function, to ameliorate patient symptoms, and to improve quality of life. The present study aimed to compare the anatomic and functional outcomes between four- and six-arm polypropylene mesh implantations. Materials and Methods: The authors retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent surgical mesh implantation between January 2011 and July 2014. Group A was composed of patients who underwent four-arm mesh implantation (n=29), and group B consisted of patients who underwent six-arm mesh implantation (n=26). The authors compared operation durations and complications between the two groups. They also evaluated the patients using the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) assessment form. Results: The average ages of groups A and B were 48.2 ± 8.3 and 39.3 ± 5.6 years, respectively. There were no significant differences in BMI, incontinence duration, operation duration, or post-operative UDI 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 scores between the two groups. However, the postoperative UDI-6 scores of both groups were significantly lower than their pre-operative scores. Conclusions: The authors conclude that four- and six-arm mesh implantations facilitated comparably and significantly anatomic and functional recovery.
Pelvic organ prolapse