Tensile properties of commonly used prolapse meshes.
OBJECTIVE
To improve our understanding of the differences in commonly used synthetic prolapse meshes, we compared four newer generation meshes to Gynecare PS using a tensile testing protocol. We hypothesize that the newer meshes have inferior biomechanical properties.


METHODS
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.


RESULTS
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 (p < 0.05) and more readily deformed in response to uniaxial and cyclical loading (p < 0.001).


CONCLUSIONS
Relative to Gynecare, the newer generation of prolapse meshes were significantly less stiff, with irreversible deformation at significantly lower loads.
Jones
Keisha A
KA
Magee-Womens Research Institute, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Feola
Andrew
A
Meyn
Leslie
L
Abramowitch
Steven D
SD
Moalli
Pamela A
PA
D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D004868:Equipment Failure; D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing / Q000379:methods*; D013526:Surgical Mesh / Q000592:standards*; D013718:Tensile Strength; D014596:Uterine Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*