Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
BJOG. 2008 Oct;115(11):1350-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01845.x. Epub 2008 Aug 19.

Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

  • 1Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. x.jia@abdn.ac.uk

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The efficacy and safety of mesh/graft in surgery for anterior or posterior pelvic organ prolapse is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES:

To systematically review the efficacy and safety of mesh/graft for anterior or posterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY:

Electronic databases and conference proceedings were searched, experts and manufacturers contacted, and reference lists of retrieved papers scanned.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised comparative studies, registries, case series involving at least 50 women, and RCTs published as conference abstracts from 2005 onwards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

One reviewer screened titles/abstracts, undertook data extraction, and assessed study quality. Data analysis was conducted for three subgroups: anterior, posterior, and anterior and/or posterior repair (not reported separately).

RESULTS:

Forty-nine studies involving 4569 women treated with mesh/graft were included. Study quality was generally high. Median follow up was 13 months (range 1-51 months). In anterior repair, there was short-term evidence that mesh/graft (any type) significantly reduced objective prolapse recurrence rates compared with no mesh/graft (relative risk 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.72). Nonabsorbable synthetic mesh had a significantly lower objective prolapse recurrence rate (8.8%, 48/548) than absorbable synthetic mesh (23.1%, 63/273) and biological graft (17.9%, 186/1041), but a higher erosion rate (10.2%, 68/666) than absorbable synthetic mesh (0.7%, 1/147) and biological graft (6.0%, 35/581). There was insufficient information to compare any of the other outcomes regardless of prolapse type.

CONCLUSIONS:

Evidence for most outcomes was too sparse to provide meaningful conclusions. Rigorous long-term RCTs are required to determine the comparative efficacy of using mesh/graft.

PMID:
18715243
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Blackwell Publishing Icon for PubMed Health
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk