Literature DB >> 17499285

Results of cystocele repair: a comparison of traditional anterior colporrhaphy, polypropylene mesh and porcine dermis.

LiAnn N Handel1, Tara L Frenkl, Young H Kim.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Because traditional anterior colporrhaphy can have a high recurrence rate, we assessed the recurrence rate of 3 methods of cystocele repair, including 1) traditional anterior colporrhaphy, 2) repair using porcine dermis interposition graft and 3) repair using polypropylene mesh. Additionally, we compared the rate of erosion of porcine dermal graft with that of polypropylene mesh.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of patients who underwent cystocele repair by the same urologist using porcine dermal graft, polypropylene mesh or traditional repair from January 1999 to August 2005 were reviewed. Data were collected on history, physical examination, outcomes and complications. Using the Baden-Walker system a cystocele of grade 2 or higher on followup examination was considered recurrence.
RESULTS: A total of 119 patients underwent cystocele repair from January 1999 to August 2005. Followup was available on 99 patients and it averaged 13.5 months (range 2 to 46). Of the patients 56 (57%) underwent cystocele repair using porcine dermal graft, 25 (25%) received polypropylene mesh and 18 (18%) underwent traditional repair. Of the 99 patients 22 (22%) had cystocele recurrence. Based on the type of repair 36% of patients (20 of 56) with porcine dermal grafts had recurrence compared to 4% (1 of 25) and 6% (1 of 18) using polypropylene and traditional repair, respectively. Mean time to cystocele recurrence was 4.9 months (range 0.5 to 20). A total of 12 patients (21%) had extrusion of porcine grafts through the anterior vaginal wall incision compared to 1 (4%) with polypropylene mesh.
CONCLUSIONS: In our patient population the short-term failure rate for anterior vaginal wall prolapse using porcine dermis interposition graft was higher than that for traditional anterior colporrhaphy or polypropylene mesh. In addition, the incidence of vaginal extrusion of porcine graft was unacceptably high. Porcine dermis is a less suitable material for cystocele repair than polypropylene mesh or traditional anterior colporrhaphy. Prospective, randomized trials are necessary to determine the true efficacy and complication rates of these graft materials for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17499285     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  17 in total

1.  Evaluating the porcine dermis graft InteXen in three-compartment transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Authors:  Rajeev Ramanah; Julian Mairot; Marie-Caroline Clement; Bernard Parratte; Robert Maillet; Didier Riethmuller
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Porcine skin collagen implants for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised prospective controlled study.

Authors:  Ulla Hviid; Thomas Vauvert F Hviid; Martin Rudnicki
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-02-18       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Mesh kits for anterior vaginal prolapse are not cost effective.

Authors:  Sunshine Murray; Rashel M Haverkorn; Yair Lotan; Gary E Lemack
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-10-09       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  The outcome of transobturator cystocele repair using biocompatible porcine dermis graft: our experience with 32 cases.

Authors:  Ayman Mahdy; Mostafa Elmissiry; Gamal Ghoniem
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-06-05

5.  A prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing Gynemesh, a synthetic mesh, and Pelvicol, a biologic graft, in the surgical treatment of recurrent cystocele.

Authors:  F Natale; C La Penna; A Padoa; M Agostini; E De Simone; M Cervigni
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-10-16

6.  Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016).

Authors:  K Baeßler; T Aigmüller; S Albrich; C Anthuber; D Finas; T Fink; C Fünfgeld; B Gabriel; U Henscher; F H Hetzer; M Hübner; B Junginger; K Jundt; S Kropshofer; A Kuhn; L Logé; G Nauman; U Peschers; T Pfiffer; O Schwandner; A Strauss; R Tunn; V Viereck
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.915

7.  Biologic grafts for cystocele repair: does concomitant midline fascial plication improve surgical outcomes?

Authors:  Deborah R Karp; Thais V Peterson; Ayman Mahdy; Gamal Ghoniem; Vivian C Aguilar; G Willy Davila
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Long-term results of vaginal repairs with and without xenograft reinforcement.

Authors:  Lone Mouritsen; Manuela Kronschnabl; Gunnar Lose
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Advances in managing pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  Joan Pitkin
Journal:  F1000 Med Rep       Date:  2009-11-16

10.  Reoperation rate for traditional anterior vaginal repair: analysis of 207 cases with a median 4-year follow-up.

Authors:  Dharmesh S Kapoor; Marika Nemcova; Konstantinos Pantazis; Paula Brockman; Luigi Bombieri; Robert M Freeman
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-09-11       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.