{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029264214046822744, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011705685618729096, 'mean_word_length': 5.015075376884422, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of polyglycolic acid and polypropylene mesh for rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse.

OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of absorbable and non-absorbable mesh for rectal fixation in abdominal rectopexy.


DESIGN
Prospective open study.


SETTING
University hospital, Israel.


SUBJECTS
37 consecutive patients with complete rectal prolapse.


INTERVENTIONS
Posterior abdominal rectopexy with non-absorbable mesh (Polypropylene, Prolene, Ethicon Ltd) in 17 patients and with absorbable mesh (Polyglycolic acid, Dexon, Davis & Geck) in 20.


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
There was no operative mortality, and there were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of postoperative complications. Mean (SD) follow up was 3.6(0.5) years and 3.8(0.7) years in the Dexon and Prolene groups, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative performance indices based on the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index were similar in both groups.


CONCLUSIONS
Dexon mesh may be as effective as Prolene mesh in the treatment of complete rectal prolapse. A performance index seems to be a useful tool for evaluating the outcome of patients after repair of complete rectal prolapse.