Tensile properties of commonly used prolapse meshes

Introduction and hypothesis  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). Conclusion  Relative to Gynecare™, the newer generation of prolapse meshes were significantly less stiff, with irreversible deformation at significantly lower loads.