Literature DB >> 18348739

Biologic and synthetic graft use in pelvic surgery: a review.

Sharon M Jakus1, Alex Shapiro, Cynthia D Hall.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse are some of the most commonly treated conditions in postmenopausal women. Surgical cure rates vary greatly depending on surgical technique and the type of materials used, if any, to supplement the native tissue. Traditional colporrhaphy relies on adequate tissue for a successful repair. The main concern associated with traditional plication or needle suspension type repairs is that the use of intrinsic attenuated tissue may provide a weak, constricted, or an anatomically incorrect result. Graft use allows for a broader base of support and eliminates the need to rely on the existing weakened fascia and musculature. A review of the existing literature on success rates and complications with various synthetic and biologic graft materials yielded the following conclusions. The superiority of graft use over traditional suture suspensions for abdominal sacrocolpopexy and suburethral sling procedures has clearly been shown in the literature. Macroporous monofilament synthetic grafts and non-cross-linked biologic grafts appear to have the best integration into native tissues. Solvent dehydration and irradiation of biologic grafts may weaken the integrity of the material and may prevent proper tissue integration. Technical factors related to surgical technique may impact success rates, such as tension on suture line or failure to use vaginal packing. The perfect graft material has not yet been created. Suggestions for further research include more prospective, randomized trials comparing synthetic and biologic grafts, tension-free versus secured mesh, and absorbable versus nonabsorbable mesh. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians Learning
Objectives: After completion of this article, the reader should be able to recall how common urinary incontinence is, explain the historical considerations for diagnosis and treatment, and summarize the updated methods of treatment based upon anatomical structures and pathophysiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18348739     DOI: 10.1097/OGX.0b013e318166fb44

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Surv        ISSN: 0029-7828            Impact factor:   2.347


  19 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of current synthetic mesh materials in pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Authors:  Prashanth Kanagarajah; Rajinikanth Ayyathurai; Christopher Gomez
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Suburethral sling in autoimmune patients: complications, quality of life, and success rate.

Authors:  Roberto Angioli; Roberto Montera; Francesco Plotti; Corrado Terranova; Alessia Aloisi; Marzio Angelo Zullo
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Effect of enzymatic degradation on the mechanical properties of biological scaffold materials.

Authors:  Afua H Annor; Michael E Tang; Chi Lun Pui; Gregory C Ebersole; Margaret M Frisella; Brent D Matthews; Corey R Deeken
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  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

5.  Conservative treatment of intrarectal mesh migration after ventral laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse.

Authors:  Hadrien Tranchart; Alain Valverde; Nicolas Goasguen; Jean-François Gravié; Henri Mosnier
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Risk factors for mesh erosion 3 months following vaginal reconstructive surgery using commercial kits vs. fashioned mesh-augmented vaginal repairs.

Authors:  Peter S Finamore; Karolynn T Echols; Krystal Hunter; Howard B Goldstein; Adam S Holzberg; Babak Vakili
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Incidence and risk factors for reoperation of surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Patrick Dällenbach; Carol Jungo Nancoz; Isabelle Eperon; Jean-Bernard Dubuisson; Michel Boulvain
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Three-dimensional analysis of implanted magnetic-resonance-visible meshes.

Authors:  Nikhil Sindhwani; Andrew Feola; Frederik De Keyzer; Filip Claus; Geertje Callewaert; Iva Urbankova; Sebastien Ourselin; Jan D'hooge; Jan Deprest
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 9.  Tissue engineering as a potential alternative or adjunct to surgical reconstruction in treating pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  M Boennelycke; S Gras; G Lose
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Unusual site of graft erosion after abdominal sacrocervicopexy.

Authors:  N V Nardello; R O Platte; M H Parekh
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.