| PURPOSE: Short-term efficacy of the application on Prolift system and Gynemesh intotal pelvic floor reconstruction and to explore suitable individualized treatment plan for thepatients with pelvic organ prolapse.METHODS:60patients were divided into two groups:30cases in Gynecare ProliftSystem surgery and the other30in the group of revised total pelvic floor construction withGynemesh. We compared the pre-, peri-operative data and follow-up results of the two groupswere compared respectively and statistical analysis was then conducted.RESULTS: There is no significant statistical significance in age〠menopause ageã€course of disease and gravidity and parity history between the two groups (P>0.05). Theoperation timeã€operative hemorrhageã€residue urine and the time of in-hospital of the twogroups were no significant statistical significance (P>0.05). The follow-up rate of the Proliftgroup was100%, with mean time of (10.6±0.7) months. Only1case (3.3%) recurred withanterior vaginal prolapse in1months after operation.4cases (13.2%) occurred exposure inanterior vaginal wall.2cases (6.7%) occurred stress urinary incontinenceï¼›The follow-uprate of the Gyenmesh group was100%, with mean time of (10.8±0.9) months.1case(3.3%)were recurrence and3cases(10.0%) were found exposure in vaginal wall.CONCLUSION:1. The short-term efficacy of the application of the Prolift system andGynemesh were both safety and feasible,and the long-term efficacy need further observation.2.The Gynecare Prolift System were fit into the patient with severe prolapse and pecunious. |