Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Feb 3.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep 8;216(2):153.e1–153.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.073

TABLE 2.

Functional and morphometric analysis of vagina after implantation of Gynemesh-MatriStem composite mesh (n = 8) or MatriStem alone (n = 8) as compared to historical data for sham-operated and Gynemesh alone6,7

Function
 Morphometrics
 Cell apoptosis, % of total cell number
Contractility,
mN/mm3 		Subepithelium
thickness, μm		 Muscularis
thickness,
μm		 Subepithelium Muscularis Adventitia
Shama 0.26 ±0.11 522 ±189 1557 ±499 0.2 (0.1, 0.7) 0.1 (0.0, 0.1)  1.2 (0.4, 2.3)
Gynemesha 0.08 ± 0.03c 517 ±180  866±210c 4.2c (2.1, 10.6) 0.5c (0.3, 0.9) 12.2c (8.2, 25.2)
Composite 0.14 ±0.11 710 ±366 1635 ± 403d 0.1d (0.0, 0.3) 0.0d (0.0, 0.1)  2.3d (1.0, 5.3)
MatriStem 0.17 ±0.18 596 ±178 1311 ±187 0.1d (0.1, 0.2) 0.0d (0.0, 0.1)  0.5d (0.2, 3.2)
P b  .009    .380    .001  .000  .000   .000

Composite: Gynemesh-MatriStem RS (2-ply); MatriStem: MatriStem pelvic floor matrix (6-ply).

Results are expressed as mean ± SD for contractility, subepithelium, and muscularis thickness, or median (first quartile, third quartile) for cell apoptosis quantification.

a

Historical data;

b

Overall comparison of P value among groups;

c

P < .05 compared with sham;

d

P < .05 compared with Gynemesh.