-
Review Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.
- X Jia, C Glazener, G Mowatt, G MacLennan, C Bain, C Fraser, and J Burr.
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. x.jia@abdn.ac.uk
- BJOG. 2008 Oct 1; 115 (11): 1350-61.
BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of mesh/graft in surgery for anterior or posterior pelvic organ prolapse is uncertain.ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of mesh/graft for anterior or posterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery.Search StrategyElectronic databases and conference proceedings were searched, experts and manufacturers contacted, and reference lists of retrieved papers scanned.Selection CriteriaRandomised 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 AnalysisOne 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).ResultsForty-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.ConclusionsEvidence 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.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.