ABSTRACT

There are many arguments in favour of using protheses via a vaginal approach during prolapse treatment. Without going into too much detail, the main arguments are the support provided and the availability of excessive tissue required for extended repair. Further incentives are the limits faced by today’s techniques using biological materials with variable stability, the restrictive indications of techniques based on the enclosure of vaginal tissue, the extent of available vaginal tissue, the cases of pre-menopausal patients, and, finally, the considerable frequency of relapse seen with techniques using supports of tissue-origin. However, those who have tried to use synthetic protheses for the treatment of urinary incontinence are, unfortunately, aware of the potential complications, which include granulomas, slowness of healing, and secondary resections depending on the type of technique applied and the material used.