Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT

Tayrac, Renaud de; Cornille, Arnaud; Eglin, G.; Guilbaud, Olivier; Mansoor, A.; Alonso, Sandrine; Fernandez, H.

doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2075-1

Cited by 55 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At 2 years follow-up, 5 out of 33 women in the mesh group (15.1%) were aware of the prolapse compared to 9 out of 35 women in the colporrhaphy group (25.7%). Similar results have been published by several previous randomized studies in the last 5 years [29–32]. …”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Reasons for and Against Use of Non-absorbable, Synthetic Mesh During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair, According to the Prolapsed Compartment

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Awareness and reporting of mesh-related complications of pelvic organ prolapse repairs have increased in recent years. As a result, deciding whether to use a mesh or not has become a difficult task for urogynecologists. Our aim was to summarize reasons for and against the use of mesh in prolapse repair based on a review of relevant literature. Scopus and PubMed databases were searched for papers reporting on the efficacy and safety of native tissue versus non-absorbable, synthetic mesh prolapse repairs. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were included. Evidence is presented for each vaginal compartment separately. In the anterior compartment, mesh repairs seem to offer clearly superior efficacy and durability of results compared to native tissue repairs, but with an equally clear increase in complication rates. In the isolated posterior compartment prolapse, high-quality evidence is sparse. As far as the apical compartment is concerned, sacrocolpopexy is the most efficacious, yet the most invasive procedure. Data on the comparison of transvaginal mesh versus native tissue repairs of the apical compartment are somewhat ambiguous. Given the inevitable coexistence of advantages and disadvantages of mesh use in each of the prolapsed vaginal compartments, an individualized treatment decision, based on weighing risks against benefits for each patient, seems to be the most rational approach.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Reasons for and Against Use of Non-absorbable, Synthetic Mesh During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair, According to the Prolapsed Compartment

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This meta-analysis showed that the use of meshes for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse is superior to native tissue surgical repair, when objective cure through POP-Q assessment is considered. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] All of the articles included in this meta-analysis considered as an objective cure criterion a post-surgical POP-Q stage inferior to 2 in the pelvic examination. This definition of cure, that is, when the prolapse's maximum extent stays at least 1 cm above the hymenal ring, is based on the recommendations of the US National Institute of Health (NIH) workshop.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mesh Surgery for Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse: A Meta-analysis

Juliato

Júnior

Haddad

et al. 2016

Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords► anterior pelvic organ prolapse ► cystocele ► surgery ► mesh ► colporrhaphy ► meta-analysis AbstractPurpose Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major health issue worldwide, affecting 6-8% of women. The most affected site is the anterior vaginal wall. Multiple procedures and surgical techniques have been used, with or without the use of vaginal meshes, due to common treatment failure, reoperations, and complication rates in some studies. Methods Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis regarding the use of vaginal mesh in anterior vaginal wall prolapse was performed. A total of 115 papers were retrieved after using the medical subject headings (MESH) terms: 'anterior pelvic organ prolapse OR cystocele AND surgery AND (mesh or colporrhaphy)' in the PubMed database. Exclusion criteria were: follow-up shorter than 1 year, use of biological or absorbable meshes, and inclusion of other vaginal wall prolapses. Studies were put in a data chart by two independent editors; results found in at least two studies were grouped for analysis. Results After the review of the titles by two independent editors, 70 studies were discarded, and after abstract assessment, 18 trials were eligible for full text screening. For final screening and meta-analysis, after applying the Jadad score (> 2), 12 studies were included. Objective cure was greater in the mesh surgery group (odds ratio [OR] ¼ 1,28 [1,07-1,53]), which also had greater blood loss (mean deviation [MD] ¼ 45,98 [9,[72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82]25]), longer surgery time (MD ¼ 15,08 [0,67]), but less prolapse recurrence (OR ¼ 0,22 [01,38]). Dyspareunia, symptom resolution and reoperation rates were not statistically different between groups. Quality of life (QOL) assessment through the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12), the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20), the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the perceived quality of life scale (PQOL) was not significantly different.

show abstract

“…Tanulmányunk a nemzetközi irodalomban fellelhető adatokkal harmonizálva, a hálóműtétek magasabb POPjavító képességét igazolta a tradicionális mellső hüvelyfali plastikcával szemben (81,0-60,3% vs. 65,6-34,5%) [7,26,27]. Eredményeink a korábbi tanulmányok sikerességi arányánál is jobb eredményt adtak (91,3% vs. 81,0-60,3%), aminek a hátterében műtéttechnikai eltérés állhat.…”

Section: Megbeszélésunclassified

Hüvelyi hálóműtétek gyakorlata az amerikai korlátozó figyelmeztetés után. Merjem, vagy ne merjem?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT

Abstract: Trans-obturator Ugytex mesh used to treat anterior vaginal wall prolapse gives better 1-year anatomical results than traditional anterior colporrhaphy, but with small a increase in morbidity in the mesh group.

Cited by 55 publications

References 26 publications

Reasons for and Against Use of Non-absorbable, Synthetic Mesh During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair, According to the Prolapsed Compartment

Reasons for and Against Use of Non-absorbable, Synthetic Mesh During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair, According to the Prolapsed Compartment

Mesh Surgery for Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse: A Meta-analysis

Hüvelyi hálóműtétek gyakorlata az amerikai korlátozó figyelmeztetés után. Merjem, vagy ne merjem?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About