Introduction and hypothesisThe aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of transvaginal trocar-guided polypropylene mesh insertion with traditional colporrhaphy for treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse.MethodsThis is a randomized controlled trial in which women with advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse, at least stage II with Ba ≥ +1 cm according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) classification, were randomly assigned to have either anterior colporrhaphy (n = 39) or repair using trocar-guided transvaginal mesh (n = 40). The primary outcome was objective cure rate of the anterior compartment (point Ba) assessed at the 12-month follow-up visit, with stages 0 and I defined as anatomical success. Secondary outcomes included quantification of other vaginal compartments (POP-Q points), comparison of quality of life by the prolapse quality of life (P-QOL) questionnaire, and complication rate between the groups after 1 year. Study power was fixed as 80 % with 5 % cutoff point (p < 0.05) for statistical significance.ResultsThe groups were similar regarding demographic and clinical preoperative parameters. Anatomical success rates for colporrhaphy and repair with mesh placement groups were 56.4 vs 82.5 % (95 % confidence interval 0.068–0.54), respectively, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (p = 0.018). Similar total complication rates were observed in both groups, with tape exposure observed in 5 % of the patients. There was a significant improvement in all P-QOL domains as a result of both procedures (p < 0.001), but they were not distinct between groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionsTrocar-guided transvaginal synthetic mesh for advanced anterior POP repair is associated with a higher anatomical success rate for the anterior compartment compared with traditional colporrhaphy. Quality of life equally improved after both techniques. However, the trial failed to detect differences in P-QOL scores and complication rates between the groups.

Transvaginal synthetic mesh repair for advanced anterior vaginal prolapse provided higher anatomical success and satisfaction rates compared with traditional colporraphy. Both procedures equally improved quality of life. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:509-514, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Objective To compare surgical treatments for stress urinary incontinence in terms of efficiency and complications. Data Sources We searched the MEDLINE and COCHRANE databases using the terms stress urinary incontinence, surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence and sling. Selection of Studies Forty-eight studies were selected, which amounted to a total of 6,881 patients with scores equal to or higher than 3 in the Jadad scale. Data Collection Each study was read by one of the authors, added to a standardized table and checked by a second author. We extracted data on intervention details, follow-up time, the results of treatment and adverse events. Data Synthesis Comparing retropubic versus transobturator slings, the former was superior for both objective (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.54) and subjective (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48) cures. Between minislings versus other slings, there was a difference favoring other slings for subjective cure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86). Between pubovaginal sling versus Burch surgery, there was a difference for both objective (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.50-2.77) and subjective (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.10-2.44) cures, favoring pubovaginal sling. There was no difference in the groups: midurethral slings versus Burch, pubovaginal sling versus midurethral slings, transobturator slings, minislings versus other slings (objective cure). Retropubic and pubovaginal slings are more retentionist. Retropubic slings have more bladder perforation, and transobturator slings, more leg and groin pain, neurological lesion and vaginal perforation. Conclusion Pubovaginal slings are superior to Burch colposuspension surgery but exhibit more retention. Retropubic slings are superior to transobturator slings, with more adverse events. Other slings are superior to minislings in the subjective aspect. There was no difference in the comparisons between midurethral slings versus Burch colposuspension surgery, pubovaginal versus midurethral slings, and inside-out versus outside-in transobturator slings.

Objective To analyze the existing scientific literature to find out if the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has an effect on gynecological health. Search Strategy We performed an integrative review of articles published between April 2020 and April 2021 on the PubMed, SciELO, and LILACS databases, using COVID-19 and the following relevant terms: Menstrual change; Ovarian function; Violence against women; Contraception; HPV; Mental health; and Urogynecology. Selection Criteria Among the eligible studies found, editorials and primary research articles, which describe the dynamics between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection (the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic) and gynecological health, were included. Data Collection and Analysis Through qualitative synthesis, data were extracted from the included publications and from guidelines of national and international societies of gynecology. Main Results The 34 publications included in the present study showed that some factors of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, and, consequently, the COVID-19 pandemic, might be associated with menstrual abnormalities, effects on contraception, alterations in steroid hormones, changes in urogynecological care, effects on women's mental health, and negative impact on violence against women. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the health of women. The scientific community encourages the development of recommendations for specialized care for women and strategies to prevent and respond to violence during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract