INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Currently, most implants used for reinforcement in surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders are knitted monofilament polypropylene (PP). While previously recognized as inert, PP is associated with high complication rates. Some recent literature suggests polyester prosthetics based on poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), which may be more inert in vivo. METHODS: A sample of 100 implants explanted from patients due to complications was examined to evaluate the relative degradation characteristics of PP and PET prosthetics. Histological, microscopic (scanning electron microscopy, SEM) and chemical analysis (Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)) were conducted on these explants. RESULTS: Poly(ethylene terephtahlate) explants appeared to sustain less degradation in vivo than the PP explants observed in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate synthetic implants used in a vaginal approach for pelvic floor reinforcement. The study provides evidence contrary to published literature characterizing PP as inert in such applications. Additionally, the study suggests the need for clinical trials comparatively investigating the performance of new types of monofilament prosthetics, such as those comprising PET.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Currently, most implants used for reinforcement in surgical treatment of pelvic floor disorders are knitted monofilament polypropylene (PP). While previously recognized as inert, PP is associated with high complication rates. Some recent literature suggests polyester prosthetics based on poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), which may be more inert in vivo. METHODS: A sample of 100 implants explanted from patients due to complications was examined to evaluate the relative degradation characteristics of PP and PET prosthetics. Histological, microscopic (scanning electron microscopy, SEM) and chemical analysis (Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)) were conducted on these explants. RESULTS:Poly(ethylene terephtahlate) explants appeared to sustain less degradation in vivo than the PP explants observed in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate synthetic implants used in a vaginal approach for pelvic floor reinforcement. The study provides evidence contrary to published literature characterizing PP as inert in such applications. Additionally, the study suggests the need for clinical trials comparatively investigating the performance of new types of monofilament prosthetics, such as those comprising PET.
Authors: X Deffieux; R de Tayrac; C Huel; J Bottero; A Gervaise; K Bonnet; R Frydman; H Fernandez Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2006-01-04
Authors: P Debodinance; J Berrocal; H Clavé; M Cosson; O Garbin; B Jacquetin; C Rosenthal; D Salet-Lizée; R Villet Journal: J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) Date: 2004-11
Authors: Fréderic Caquant; Pierre Collinet; Philippe Debodinance; Juan Berrocal; Olivier Garbin; Claude Rosenthal; Henri Clave; Richard Villet; Bernard Jacquetin; Michel Cosson Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 1.730
Authors: Ali Azadi; Jacek B Jasinski; Sean L Francis; Resad Pasic; Lioudmila Lipetskaia; Nicolette E Deveneau; Taraneh Yeganeh; Donald R Ostergard Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Vanessa Belebecha; Rúbia Casagrande; Mariana R Urbano; Jefferson Crespigio; Renata M Martinez; David L Vale; Sílvio Henrique Maia de Almeida Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jerry G Blaivas; Rajveer S Purohit; Matthew S Benedon; Gabriel Mekel; Michael Stern; Mubashir Billah; Kola Olugbade; Robert Bendavid; Vladimir Iakovlev Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 14.432