Podium Session

Poster, Podium & Video Sessions

PD17-04: Polyvinyldenfluorid (PVDF) versus Polypropylene (PP) mesh for sacrocolpopexy

Saturday, May 13
7:30 AM - 7:40 AM
Location: BCEC: Room 161

Presentation Authors: Manuel Di Biase*, Illiano Ester, Elena Sarti, Alessandro Zucchi, Perugia, Italy, Raffaele Balsamo, Catanzaro, Italy, Antonio Pastore, Latina, Italy, Elisabetta Costantini, Perugia, Italy

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare a polymer mesh made of Polyvinyldenfluorid to polypropylene, the mesh material most commonly used in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgical repair, in terms of anatomical and functional results as well as safety, in patients who underwent sacrocolpopexy (SC)

Methods: This series included women who underwent SC for stages III or IV POP, according to the POP- Quantification (POP-Q) system, from 2005 to 2015, using either PP (Cousin Biotech Sacromesh®) or PVDF (DynaMesh®-PRS) mesh.
All women were preoperatively evaluated with history, physical examination and urodynamics. Urinary and sexual symptoms were assessed with the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI), the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire. At the follow-up all patients were recalled and re-assessed with physical examination and the same questionnaires also used at baseline.
Patients’ satisfaction was recorded with the VAS score and the Patient Global Impression-Improvement (PGI-I) questionnaire.


Results: Between January and May 2016, 136 patients with at least 1 year follow-up were re-assessed: 73 who had polypropylene mesh POP repair (PP group) and 63 who had PVDF mesh repair (PVDF group). The only significant difference between the two groups was duration of follow-up: 94.9±21.7 months for the PP and 29.8±13.8 months for the PVDF group because the last one was marketed later.
Postoperative anatomical correction rates (success: POP stages 0 or I), voiding and storage symptoms, urgency and stress incontinence, questionnaire scores and mesh erosion rates are reported in Table 1. Most outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups with the exception of storage symptoms, sexual symptoms and UDI-6 scores that were better in the PVDF group.
Subjective patient satisfaction was high in both groups with no significant differences between them


Conclusions: Our results suggest that PVDF is at least as safe as polypropylene when used in POP repair. PVDF filaments have an excellent biocompatibility reducing adverse foreign body reactions such as granuloma formation, are associated with reduced bacterial colonization and maintain their tensile strength longer than polypropylene, that may explain the better results of PVDF in storage and sexual symptoms

Source Of Funding: none

Manuel Di Biase

Presentation(s):

Send Email for Manuel Di Biase


Assets

PD17-04: Polyvinyldenfluorid (PVDF) versus Polypropylene (PP) mesh for sacrocolpopexy



Attendees who have favorited this

Send Email for Polyvinyldenfluorid (PVDF) versus Polypropylene (PP) mesh for sacrocolpopexy