Literature DB >> 16566983

Long-term outcome of abdominal sacrocolpopexy using xenograft compared with synthetic mesh.

Daniel Altman1, Bo Anzen, Sophia Brismar, Annika Lopez, Jan Zetterström.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical outcome after abdominal sacrocolpopexy using a porcine dermal graft compared with a synthetic mesh.
METHODS: Patients with vaginal vault prolapse Stage II or worse (Baden-Walker staging), underwent sacrocolpopexy using a synthetic mesh (n = 25) or porcine collagen graft (n = 27). The subjective outcome was measured using validated questionnaires.
RESULTS: The mean clinical follow-up from surgery was 7.1 months for the xenograft compared with 7.4 months for the synthetic cohort. At clinical follow-up, vaginal vault prolapse Stage II was present in 8 (29%) of 27 patients in the xenograft cohort and 6 (24%) of 25 patients in the synthetic mesh cohort (no significant difference). The mean follow-up from surgery to survey was 2.5 years in the xenograft cohort and 4.3 years in the synthetic cohort. None of the patients in either cohort had undergone a secondary sacrocolpopexy. No significant differences were found between the cohorts regarding surgical morbidity other than more patients experiencing fever for 1 to 3 days in the xenograft cohort (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in lower urinary tract symptoms, anorectal symptoms, or quality-of-life variables between the two cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal sacrocolpopexy using a porcine dermal graft was comparable to synthetic mesh in terms of subjective and anatomic outcomes at mid to long-term follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16566983     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.10.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  9 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of current biologic meshes in pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Authors:  Ashley Cox; Sender Herschorn
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  Xueli Jia; Cathryn Glazener; Graham Mowatt; David Jenkinson; Cynthia Fraser; Christine Bain; Jennifer Burr
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Sacrocolpopexy: is there a consistent surgical technique?

Authors:  Orfhlaith E O'Sullivan; Catherine A Matthews; Barry A O'Reilly
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Shrinkage and biomechanical evaluation of lightweight synthetics in a rabbit model for primary fascial repair.

Authors:  Yves Ozog; Maja L Konstantinovic; Erika Werbrouck; Dirk De Ridder; Mazza Edoardo; Jan Deprest
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  Prolapse Repair Using Non-synthetic Material: What is the Current Standard?

Authors:  Ricardo Palmerola; Nirit Rosenblum
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-10-14       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  Reoperation rates for pelvic organ prolapse repairs with biologic and synthetic grafts in a large population-based cohort.

Authors:  Ericka M Sohlberg; Kai B Dallas; Brannon T Weeks; Christopher S Elliott; Lisa Rogo-Gupta
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-07-12       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 7.  Approaching Combined Rectal and Vaginal Prolapse.

Authors:  Shannon Wallace; Brooke Gurland
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2022-01-17

Review 8.  To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Patrick Dällenbach
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2015-04-01

Review 9.  Clinical challenges in the management of vaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Nazema Y Siddiqui; Autumn L Edenfield
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2014-01-16
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.