Əsas səhifə

Çap

Əks əlaqə

İnfo
Native tissue versus biological graft in anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse

Mündəricat

Native tissue versus biological graft in anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse

Sübutlu məlumatların xülasələri
30.08.2018 • Sonuncu dəyişiklik 30.08.2018
Editors

In anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse biological graft repair or absorbable mesh appears to give minimal advantage compared with native tissue repair. Ppolypropylene mesh appears to decrease the risk of recurrence and repeat of surgery but increase the risk of repeat surgery for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence and mesh exposure (composite outcome) compared with native tissue repair.

Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by study limitations (unclear allocation concealment and or assessment of outcome).

Summary

A Cochrane review included 33 studies with a total of 3332 subjects. Recurrence after traditional native tissue repair (anterior colporrhaphy) in anterior compartment prolapse is not unusual. When native tissue was compared with biological graft, there was no difference in repeat surgery, stress urinary incontinence, or dyspareunia, but increased risk of recurrence of prolapse (table ; moderate quality evidence). When native tissue was compared with polypropylene mesh, there was increased risk of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse (moderate quality evidence), no difference in SUI or dyspareunia, but decreased risk for repeat surgery for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence or mesh exposure (compsite outcome; moderate quality evidence) (table ). When native tissue was compared with absorbable mesh, there was no clear diffrence in awareness of prolapse or repeat surgery for prolapse (low quality evidence), but increased risk for recurrent anterior compartment prolapse (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.06; 3 trials, n=268; moderate-quality evidence).

Native tissue versus biological graft in women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse
Outcome (1-2 years)Relative effect (95% CI) Assumed risk - Control - Biological graft Corresponding risk - Native tissue (95% CI)No of participants (studies)
Awareness of prolapse RR 0.98 (0.52 to 1.82) 124 / 1000 122 / 1000 (65 to 226) 552 (5)
Repeat surgery for prolapse RR 1.02 (0.53 to 1.97) 44 / 1000 45 / 1000 (23 to 86) 650 (7)
Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse RR 1.32 (1.06 to 1.65) 257 / 1000 340 / 1000 (273 to 424) 701 (8)
Stress urinary incontinence RR 1.44 (0.79 to 2.64) 130 / 1000 187 / 1000 (102 to 342) 218 (2)
Native tissue versus polypropylene mesh for women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse
Outcome (1-3 years)Relative effect (95% CI) Assumed risk - Control - Polypropylene mesh Corresponding risk - Native tissue (95% CI)No of participants (studies)
Awareness of prolapseRR 1.77 (1.37 to 2.28) 130 / 1000 230 / 1000 (178 to 297) 1133 (9)
Repeat surgery for prolapse RR 2.03 (1.15 to 3.58) 18 / 1000 37 / 1000 (21 to 66) 1629 (12)
Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse RR 3.01 (2.52 to 3.60) 126 / 1000 379 / 1000 (317 to 453) 1976 (16)
Repeat surgery for prolapse, SUI or mesh exposure RR 0.59 (0.41 to 0.83) 97 / 1000 54 / 10001527 (12)

Clinical comments

Note

Date of latest search:23 August 2016

Ədəbiyyat

  1. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K et al. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;(11):CD004014.