目的:探讨不同聚丙烯补片在全盆腔重建术治疗效果及临床价值,以期能为临床上盆腔器官脱垂提供参考。方法:将该院诊治的42例存在多部位盆腔脏器缺陷的脏器脱垂患者随机分组,21例患者使用Gynemesh聚丙烯补片(Gynemesh聚丙烯补片组)、21例患者使用Gynecare Prolift System盆底修复网片系统(Gynecare Prolift System组)行全盆腔重建术,比较两组治疗效果。结果:①两组患者在孕次、产次、绝经年龄等方面比较无统计学意义(P>0.05),年龄比较Gynemesh组比GynecareProlift System组年龄大,两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术前两组患者POP-Q量化分期比较,阴道前壁的测量点(Aa、Ba)Gynecare Prolift System组重于Gynemesh聚丙烯组,两组比较存在统计学意义(P<0.05),阴道后壁测量点及子宫脱垂程度两组比较无统计学意义(P>0.05)。②两组在手术时间、术中出血量、住院费用方面比较差异存在统计学意义(P<0.05),在术后最高体温、术后残余尿、住院时间方面比较两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。③Gynecare Prolift System组随访率90.48%,随访时间平均(9.42±4.28)个月,1例发生补片侵蚀,Gynemesh聚丙烯组随访率95.24%,随访时间平均(9.28±5.14)个月,3例发生补片侵蚀,两组术后POP-Q分期均恢复正常范围。结论:Gynemesh聚丙烯补片与Gynecare Prolift Sys-tem补片用于全盆腔重建,从治疗效果看两组疗效相当,Gynemesh聚丙烯补片价格相对便宜,更适合于推广,但补片容易出现侵蚀情况,临床使用过程中需要加以关注。 Objective: To investigate the therapeutic effect and clinical value of different polypropylene patches in pelvic reconstructive surgery in order to provide a reference for the clinical pelvic organ prolapse. Methods: Forty-two cases of organ prolapse with multiple pelvic organ defects were randomly divided into two groups. Gynemesh polypropylene patch (Gynemesh polypropylene patch group) was used in 21 patients and Gynecare Prolift System Pelvic reconstruction mesh system (Gynecare Prolift System group) underwent pelvic reconstruction, the treatment effect was compared between the two groups. Results: ① There was no significant difference in gestational age, parity, age of menopause between the two groups (P> 0.05). The age of the Gynemesh group was older than that of the Gynecare Prolift System group, and the differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The preoperative two groups of POP-Q quantitative staging comparison, the measurement point of the anterior vaginal wall (Aa, Ba) Gynecare Prolift System group was heavier than the Gynemesh polypropylene group, the two groups were statistically significant (P <0.05), the posterior vaginal wall Measurement point and the degree of uterine prolapse were no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). There was significant difference between the two groups in operation time, intraoperative blood loss and hospitalization costs (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative maximum body temperature, postoperative residual urine and hospital stay P> 0.05). (3) The follow-up rate was 90.48% in Gynecare Prolift System group and 9.42 ± 4.28 months in follow-up. One case had patch erosion. The follow-up rate was 95.24% in Gynemesh Polypropylene group and 9.28 ± 5.14 months in follow- Patch erosion, POP-Q staging of both groups returned to normal range. Conclusion: Gynemesh polypropylene patch and Gynecare Prolift Sys-tem patch are used for pelvic reconstruction. The curative effects of both Gynemesh polypropylene patch and the Gynemesh polypropylene patch are relatively cheap and suitable for promotion, but the patch is prone to erosion The situation, the clinical use of the process needs to be concerned about.