Table 3. Cyclical Loading of Polypropylene Prolapse meshes relative to those of Gynecare PS.
Mesh | Percent elongation after C1 (%) | Percent elongation after C2 (%) | Percent elongation after C3 (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gynecare (n=3) | 3.0 ± 1.5 | 19.6 ± 1.8 | 20.3 ± 3.0 |
Popmesh (n=3) | 9.2 ± 0.7 | 31.6 ± 4.3 | 32.1 ± 4.0 |
Polyform (n=3) | 11.3 ± 2.6 | 28.7 ± 2.4 | 29.6 ± 1.7 |
Pelvitex (n=3) | 19.9 ± 1.4 | 37.5 ± 2.8 | 39.5 ± 1.2 |
TiMesh (n=3) | 23.6 ± 1.0 | Not Done | Not Done |
Overall P* | < 0.001 | 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Gynecare vs. Pop mesh† | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Gynecare vs. Polyform† | < 0.001 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
Gynecare vs. Pelvitex† | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
Gynecare vs. TiMesh† | < 0.001 | Not Done |
Overall P-values from one-way analysis of variance
P-values from Dunnett's multiple comparison's procedure comparing Gynecare to the other brands.