Objectives

To evaluate and compare the long-term clinical outcomes of four different transvaginal mesh systems.

Methods

This retrospective study included 695 patients classified into four groups (Prolift, n = 132; Perigee-Apogee, n = 186; Prosima, n = 60; Elevate; n = 317), with a median follow-up time of 5.8 years (range 0.5-12.2 years). The outcomes were objective anatomic success (Pelvic Organ Prolapse [POP] Quantification system stage ≤1), mesh exposure, and urologic functional assessments.

Results

For anatomic outcomes, we stepwise analyzed the short-term (within 3 years) and long-term (after 3 years) results. Prolift had the highest long-term success rate (9 years: 82.1%, P = .007). Elevate had a comparable short-term success rate (3 years: 87.5%), but its long-term success rate significantly decreased over time (5 years: 78.6%, 9 years: 66.8%, P = .007). Prosima had the lowest short-term success rate (P = .027). For the long-term mesh exposure rate (9-year cumulative), Elevate had the lowest with 11.1%; next were Perigee-Apogee (18.8%) and Prolift (24.6%); and Prosima had the highest with 39.4%, with a significant difference. In terms of urinary functional results, we observed no significant differences in voiding dysfunction, de novo stress urinary incontinence, or de novo overactive bladder symptoms among the four mesh groups, whether combined with midurethral sling surgery or not.

Conclusion

Different vaginal mesh designs have various advantages and features. Prolift provided the best long-term anatomic success but had a high mesh exposure rate. Elevate gave comparable short-term success but had a decreased long-term success rate. However, Elevate is superior with the lowest long-term mesh exposure rate. Prosima had the worst anatomic correction and highest mesh exposure rates. This study provides a comprehensive long-term comparative result for POP patients and surgeons.