| Literature DB >> 19710939 |
Robert D Moore1, John R Miklos.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19710939 PMCID: PMC2730722 DOI: 10.1155/2009/743831
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Urol ISSN: 1687-6369
Figure 1Inferior or “apical” needle being passed through the obturator space to attach the more apical arm of the mesh graft to the pelvic sidewall at the level of the ischial spine.
Figure 2Final positioning of the mesh providing support under the bladder.
Demographics.
|
| |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 70.5 |
| Parity | 2.8 |
| Previous hysterectomy | 68.8 % |
| Menopausal | 87.2 % |
| Estrogen use | 27.4 % |
| Previous repair | 40.2% |
| >1 Previous repair | 7.8% |
Concomitant procedures.
| Procedure |
| % |
|---|---|---|
| Hysterectomy | 2 | 2.5 |
| Vaginal Vault | ||
|
| 15 | 19.5 |
|
| 6 | 7.8 |
|
| 8 | 10.4 |
| Posterior repair | ||
|
| 17 | 22.1 |
|
| 12 | 15.6 |
|
| 3 | 3.9 |
| Tension free slings | 32 | 41.2 |
Preoperative versus postop POP-Q measurements (mean).
| Preoperative | Postoperative |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean POP-Q measurements | |||
|
| +2.3 ± 2.0 | −2.5 ± 0.9 | <0.5 |
|
| −4.3 ± 4.0 | −7.6 ± 1.3 | <0.5 |
| Total Vaginal Length (cm) | 9.1 ± 1.6 | 9.1 ± 0.7 | NS |
Review of literature of mesh use in cystocele repair.
| Author | Year | Mesh |
| Followup (months) | Anatomical success rate (%) | Vaginal infection (%) | Vaginal erosion (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Julian [ | 1996 | Marlex | 12 | 24 | 100 | 0 | 8.3 |
| Nicita [ | 1998 | Marlex | 44 | 3 | 93.2 | 0 | 2.3 |
| Flood et al. [ | 1998 | Marlex | 142 | 36 | 94.4 | 3.5 | 2.1 |
| Mage [ | 1999 | Mersuture | 46 | 26 | 100 | 0 | 2.2 |
| Migliari et al. [ | 2000 | Prolene | 12 | 20 | 75 | 0 | 0 |
| Hardiman et al. [ | 2000 | GyneMesh | 18 | 1 | 100 | 0 | 11.1 |
| Adhoute et al. [ | 2004 | GyneMesh | 52 | 27 | 95 | 0 | 3.8 |
| Shah et al. [ | 2004 | Prolene | 29 | 25 | 93.3 | 0 | 6.7 |
| Dwyer and O’Reilly [ | 2004 | Atrium | 47 | 29 | 94 | 0 | 7 |
| Milani et al. [ | 2004 | Prolene | 63 | 17 | 94 | 0 | 13 |
| de Tayrac et al. [ | 2006 | GyneMesh | 63 | 37 | 89.1 | 0 | 9.1 |
| de Tayrac et al. [ | 2007 | Sofradim Soft poly-propylene | 132 | 13 | 92.3% | 0 | 6.3 |
| *Hiltunen et al., [ | 2007 | Low-weight polypropylene | 104 | 12 | 93.3% versus 61.5% ant repair | 0 | 17 |
| *Sivaslioglu et al. [ | 2008 | Polypropylene (Sofradim) | 90 | 12 | 91% versus 72% (ant repair) | 0 | 6.9 |
| *Nieminen, et al. [ | 2008 | Low-weight polypropylene | 105 | 24 | 89% versus 59% (ant repair) | 0 | 8.0 |
*denotes prospective randomized trial.