“Scientists from the University of Sheffield have developed a material that could be used as an alternative to the current vaginal mesh material, polypropylene, used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.” (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180213223410.htm). Polyurethane possesses much more elasticity than polypropylene and is therefore better equipped to sustain the pelvic organs — the bladder, bowel and vagina — exerting pressure on the pelvic floor every day. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180213223410.htm). “Polypropylene (PP) is a nonabsorbable polymer, used widely because of its high tensile strength compare to that of steel. PP is a linear aliphatic hydrocarbon with a methyl group attached to alternate carbon atoms on the chain backbone (-C3H6-). As a result, it is nonpolar in nature, highly hydrophobic, electrostatically neutral and resistant to biological degradation.” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5571666/). “The overriding benefit of a PP mesh, however, is that even with its propensity to incite infection; the infections often been treated themselves without the removal of mesh. Additionally, many of the risks associated with PP are being modulated by adjusting mesh weight and porosity to promote more or less tissue in-growths. Though obviously not an inert material, PP meshes are considered to be a stable material provides an adequate service to save life.” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5571666/). The comments are all recent… so, which do you believe?