Journal
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages 847-853Publisher
SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-008-0781-x
Keywords
Mesh; Polypropylene; Prolapse
Categories
Funding
- NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD045590-02, R01 HD045590-03, R01 HD045590-05, R01 HD045590-04, R01 HD045590, R01 HD045590-01A1] Funding Source: Medline
Ask authors/readers for more resources
To improve our understanding of the differences in commonly used synthetic prolapse meshes, we compared four newer generation meshes to Gynecare PS (TM) using a tensile testing protocol. We hypothesize that the newer meshes have inferior biomechanical properties. Meshes were loaded to failure (n = 5 per group) generating load-elongation curves from which the stiffness, the load at failure, and the relative elongation were determined. Additional mesh samples (n = 3) underwent a cyclic loading protocol to measure permanent elongation in response to subfailure loading. With the exception of Popmesh, which displayed uniform stiffness, other meshes were characterized by a bilinear behavior. Newer meshes were 70-90% less stiff than Gynecare (TM) (p < 0.05) and more readily deformed in response to uniaxial and cyclical loading (p < 0.001). Relative to Gynecare (TM), the newer generation of prolapse meshes were significantly less stiff, with irreversible deformation at significantly lower loads.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available