{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04953445065176909, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024581005586592177, 'mean_word_length': 5.035955056179775, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, '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}}
[Evaluation of safety and effectiveness of pelvic organ prolapse treatment with the use of polypropylene mesh depending on mesh and application technique].

OBJECTIVES
Evaluation of safety and effectiveness of POP (pelvic organ prolapse) treatment with the use of polypropylene mesh depending on type of mesh and application technique.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
We carried out a retrospective study and compared the frequency of perioperative complications and treatment results three months after the surgical procedure in two groups of patients, divided according to POP type. The first group comprise of patients with anterior compartment disorders who had Prolift Anterior (n = 100) or Pelvimesh Anterior (n = 98) placed. The second group included patients with posterior and central compartment who had Prolifit Posterior (n = 72) and Pelvimesh Posterior (n = 89) fitted. Early peri- and postoperative complications criteria were: profuse intraoperative bleeding (hemoglobin decrease of 3g%), intraoperative damage of urinary bladder and bowel, presence of hematoma in paravesical and perirectal space, urine retention after miction on the second day after the operation (> 100 ml), uroschesis after catheter removal, early operative failure (during 3 months after the operation), mesh erosion.


RESULTS
No statistically significant differences in peri- and postoperative complications were reported between the studied groups (Pelvimesh vs. Prolift). No damage of urinary bladder or bowel was found in any of the studied groups. Other complications in Prolift Ant. Vs. Pelvimesh Ant groups were: postoperative anemia (4.00% vs. 4.09%); presence of hematoma (1.00% vs. 1.03%); postoperative urine retention (7.00% vs. 5.11%); uroschesis (1.00% vs. 1.03%); mesh erosion (2.00% vs. 1.03%); early operative failure (1.00% vs. 3.07%). Early postoperative results did not statistically differ between the Pelvimesh and the Prolift group. Results in the Prolift Post. vs. Pelvimesh Post. Groups were: postoperative anemia (2.78% vs. 5.62%); mesh erosion (1.38% vs. 0%), early operative failure (1.38% vs. 5.62%). Damage to bowel and hematoma was not observed in these groups.


CONCLUSIONS
Our research failed to observe an advantage of any of the ready POP treatment kits. Despite application of different systems for mesh placement and pulling the arms through ligaments (either obturator foramen or sacrospinous ligament), no statistically significant differences were demonstrated with regard to the occurrence of early peri- and postoperative complications or efficiency in POP treatment in Prolift Anterior vs. Pelvimesh Anterior and Prolift Posterior vs. Prolift Pelvimesh groups.