Literature DB >> 21974992

One-year objective and functional outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of vaginal mesh for prolapse.

Andrew I Sokol1, Cheryl B Iglesia, Bela I Kudish, Robert E Gutman, David Shveiky, Richard Bercik, Eric R Sokol.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to show 12-month outcomes of a randomized trial that compared vaginal prolapse repair with and without mesh. STUDY
DESIGN: Women with stage ≥2 prolapse were assigned randomly to vaginal repair with or without mesh. The primary outcome was prolapse stage ≤1 at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and complications.
RESULTS: All 65 evaluable participants were followed for 12 months after trial stoppage for mesh exposures. Thirty-two women had mesh repair; 33 women had traditional repair. At 12 months, both groups had improvement of pelvic organ prolapse-quantification test points to similar recurrence rates. The quality of life improved and did not differ between groups: 96.2% mesh vs 90.9% no-mesh subjects reported a cure of bulge symptoms; 15.6% had mesh exposures, and reoperation rates were higher with mesh.
CONCLUSION: Objective and subjective improvement is seen after vaginal prolapse repair with or without mesh. However, mesh resulted in a higher reoperation rate and did not improve 1-year cure.
Copyright © 2012 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21974992     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.08.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  28 in total

Review 1.  What is the gold standard for posterior vaginal wall prolapse repair: mesh or native tissue?

Authors:  Brian K Marks; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh.

Authors:  Natalie Gaines; Priyanka Gupta; Larry T Sirls
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Short-term outcomes of vaginal mesh placement among female Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Jennifer T Anger; Aqsa A Khan; Karyn S Eilber; Erin Chong; Stephanie Histed; Ning Wu; Chris L Pashos; J Quentin Clemens
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Central compartment and apical defect repair using synthetic mesh.

Authors:  Karen Soules; J Christian Winters; Christopher J Chermansky
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and bladder function.

Authors:  Kaven Baessler; Christopher Maher
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  [Complications associated with plastic meshes and slings. A situation like in the US?].

Authors:  E Petri
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal mesh for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Cheryl B Iglesia; Douglass S Hale; Vincent R Lucente
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 8.  Are recurrence rates for "traditional" transvaginal prolapse repairs really that high? What does the evidence show?

Authors:  Alex Gomelsky; Randy Vince
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Incidence and Management of De Novo Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms After Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.

Authors:  Henry Tran; Doreen E Chung
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Two-year outcomes after vaginal prolapse reconstruction with mesh pelvic floor repair system.

Authors:  Marianna Alperin; Rennique Ellison; Leslie Meyn; Elizabeth Frankman; Halina M Zyczynski
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.091

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.