Table 2 Anatomic results (graft surgery versus traditional surgery)
From: Use of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a literature review
Trial | Number | Number of patients studied (graft surgery versus traditional surgery) | Results (graft surgery versus traditional surgery) |
|---|---|---|---|
Hiltunena 2007 [6] | 202 | 2 months: 201 (104 versus 97) | One-year recurrence rate in favour of graft reinforcement (7% versus 38%) |
12 months: 200 (104 versus 96) | |||
Nguyena 2008 [10] | 76 | 75 (37 versus 38) | One-year recurrence rate in favour of graft reinforcement (11% versus 45%) |
Sivasliolgua 2008 [11] | 90 | 85 (43 versus 42) | One-year recurrence rate in favour of graft reinforcement (9% versus 28%) |
POP-Q difference for points Aa, Ba and C in favour of graft reinforcement | |||
Careya 2009 [12] | 139 | 124 (63 versus 61) | No significant POP-Q difference < 2 at 1 year (81% versus 65.6%) |
Lunardelli 2009 [14] | 32 | 32 (16 versus 16) | POP-Q difference for points Aa and Ba in favour of graft reinforcement (mean follow-up = 8.5 months) |
Iglesia 2010 [19] | 65 | 65 (32 versus 33) | No significant difference for recurrence rate with mean follow-up = 9.7 months (59% versus 72%) |
Point Ba higher in the group with graft reinforcement | |||
Nieminen 2010 [22] | 202 | 182 (97 versus 85) | Two-year recurrence rate in favour of graft reinforcement (12% versus 41%) |
Meschia 2007 [7] | 206 | 201 (98 versus 103) | One-year recurrence rate in favour of graft reinforcement for point Ba (7% versus 19%) |
No significant difference for recurrence rate on the posterior wall | |||
Guerette 2009 [13] | 94 | 1 year: 72 (35 versus 37) | No significant difference for recurrence rate (15% versus 22% after 1 year, 23.5% versus 37% after 2 years) |
2 years: 44 (17 versus 27) | |||
Feldner 2010 [17] | 56 | 56 (29 versus 27) | One-year recurrence rate in favour of graft reinforcement (13.8% versus 40.7%) |
POP-Q difference for point Ba in favour of graft reinforcement | |||
Hviid 2010 [18] | 61 | 3 months: 50 (27 versus 23) | No significant difference for recurrence rate after 3 and 12 months (15% versus 7%) |
12 months: 54 (28 versus 26) | |||
Paraiso 2006 [5] | 106 | 81 (26 graft reinforcements versus 27 plication of the fascia versus 28 site-specific surgical repair) | One-year recurrence rate (meaning Bp point > −2) higher and earlier in the group with graft reinforcement (46% versus 22% versus 14%) |
No significant difference for recurrence rate between these 3 groups if recurrence is defined by Bp > 0 | |||
Lopes 2010 [20] | 32 | 30 (14 versus 16) | No significant difference for recurrence rate after 12 months whatever level treated |
De Tayracb 2008 [9] | 49 | 45 (21 versus 24) | No significant difference for recurrence rate whatever level treated (anterior 4.8% versus 25%, apex 4.8% versus0%, posterior 0% versus 4.2%) with mean follow-up = 16.8 months |
Nataleb 2009 [15] | 190 | 190 (96 Gynemesh® versus 94 Pelvicol®) | No significant difference for recurrence rate after 24 months (28.1% versus 43.6%) |