Use of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a literature review

Abstract

The use of mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair through the vaginal route has increased during this last decade. The objective is to improve anatomical results (sacropexy with mesh seeming better than traditional surgery) and keep still the advantage of vaginal route. Numbers of cohort series and randomized control trials have been recently published. These works increase our knowledge of advantages and risks of mesh. It has been shown that the use of mesh to treat cystocoele through vaginal route improves anatomical results when compared to traditional surgery. The rate of complications, especially de novo dyspareunia, remains equivalent between the two techniques.

Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vault prolapse; comparison of cohorts

“…The strengths of this study are the prospective design of the study and the use of standardized and validated instruments of measurement. Furthermore, since comparative data on these two main techniques for vaginal vault prolapse are limited, this is an actual and highly relevant topic in urogynecological practice [25]. The short follow-up of 6 months and the nonrandomized selection of intervention were important limitations of this study.…”

Outcome and medium-term functional results of anterior rectopexy for rectocele repair

“…With an ageing population, the incidence of and demand for repair of pelvic organ prolapse is increasing and therefore, it remains an actual and highly relevant topic in gynaecological practice [16]. It may be difficult to diagnose rectocele at clinical examination, and many of the symptoms of a rectocele overlap other pelvic floor disorders, such as rectal intussusception, enterocele, anismus or spastic pelvic floor syndrome; therefore, defecography is needed to visualize the rectocele [1][2][3].…”