INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the 5-year surgical outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy among subjects randomized to receive polypropylene mesh or cadaveric fascia lata. METHODS:All 100 subjects from the original randomized clinical trial were eligible. Primary outcome was objective anatomic failure: any pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) point ≥ - 1. Secondary outcome was clinical failure-presence of bulge or prolapse symptoms and either a POP-Q point C ≥ ½ TVL or any POP-Q point >0-and interim surgical re-treatment. Wilcoxon tests and Fisher's exact test were performed. RESULTS: Fifty-eight subjects returned for 5-year follow-up-29 mesh and 29 fascia. Objective anatomic success rates were: mesh, 93% (27/29) and fascia, 62% (18/29) (p = 0.02). Clinical success rates were: mesh, 97% (28/29) and fascia, 90% (26/29) (p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS:Polypropylene mesh was superior to cadaveric fascia lata using objective anatomic outcomes. Success rates of mesh and fascia were comparable using a clinical definition that combined symptoms with anatomic measures.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the 5-year surgical outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy among subjects randomized to receive polypropylene mesh or cadaveric fascia lata. METHODS: All 100 subjects from the original randomized clinical trial were eligible. Primary outcome was objective anatomic failure: any pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) point ≥ - 1. Secondary outcome was clinical failure-presence of bulge or prolapse symptoms and either a POP-Q point C ≥ ½ TVL or any POP-Q point >0-and interim surgical re-treatment. Wilcoxon tests and Fisher's exact test were performed. RESULTS: Fifty-eight subjects returned for 5-year follow-up-29 mesh and 29 fascia. Objective anatomic success rates were: mesh, 93% (27/29) and fascia, 62% (18/29) (p = 0.02). Clinical success rates were: mesh, 97% (28/29) and fascia, 90% (26/29) (p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS:Polypropylene mesh was superior to cadaveric fascia lata using objective anatomic outcomes. Success rates of mesh and fascia were comparable using a clinical definition that combined symptoms with anatomic measures.
Authors: Chiara Ghetti; W Thomas Gregory; S Renee Edwards; Lesley N Otto; Amanda L Clark Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jasmine S Tan; Emily S Lukacz; Shawn A Menefee; Curt R Powell; Charles W Nager Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2004-10-23
Authors: A M Weber; P Abrams; L Brubaker; G Cundiff; G Davis; R R Dmochowski; J Fischer; T Hull; I Nygaard; A C Weidner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2001
Authors: Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Thomas L Wheeler; Joeseph Schaffer; Zhen Chen; Cathie Spino Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Patrick J Culligan; Miles Murphy; Linda Blackwell; Grant Hammons; Carol Graham; Michael H Heit Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Geoffrey Cundiff; Holly Richter; Marie Gantz; Paul Fine; Shawn Menefee; Beri Ridgeway; Anthony Visco; Lauren Klein Warren; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272