Yi Sun1, Cai Tang1, Deyi Luo1, Lu Yang1, Hong Shen2. 1. Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. shen1177hx@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare patient outcomes of mesh repair and colporrhaphy for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse (AVP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed(®), Embase(®), and Cochrane Library databases to identify the included studies. The outcome measures included anatomical success, patient satisfaction, patient sexual function, perioperative data, and complications. Statistical analyses were performed using Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (RevMan 5.1.4). RESULTS: The study inclusion criteria were met by 11 articles involving 1455 patients. Synthesized data indicated that mesh surgery was more complex than colporrhaphy with regard to perioperative condition [mean difference (MD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.49, p = 0.010]. There were no significant differences for the following complications: urinary retention [relative risk (RR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.65-1.94, p = 0.68], urinary incontinence (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63-1.63, p = 0.96), voiding difficulty (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.69-1.80, p = 0.66), dyspareunia (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.87-1.67, p = 0.26), urinary tract infection (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.74-1.78, p = 0.53), and vaginal bulge (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93-1.25, p = 0.32). There were instances of more serious complications in group 1, i.e., the mesh group. However, AVP cure rate was significantly higher in the mesh group (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.34-1.55, p < 0.00001). The cure rate was not significantly dependent on patient satisfaction (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96-1.26, p = 0.16) or postoperative sexual function (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90-1.11, p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical repair with the mesh procedure appears to be a better choice for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse.
PURPOSE: To compare patient outcomes of mesh repair and colporrhaphy for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse (AVP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed(®), Embase(®), and Cochrane Library databases to identify the included studies. The outcome measures included anatomical success, patient satisfaction, patient sexual function, perioperative data, and complications. Statistical analyses were performed using Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager software (RevMan 5.1.4). RESULTS: The study inclusion criteria were met by 11 articles involving 1455 patients. Synthesized data indicated that mesh surgery was more complex than colporrhaphy with regard to perioperative condition [mean difference (MD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.49, p = 0.010]. There were no significant differences for the following complications: urinary retention [relative risk (RR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.65-1.94, p = 0.68], urinary incontinence (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63-1.63, p = 0.96), voiding difficulty (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.69-1.80, p = 0.66), dyspareunia (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.87-1.67, p = 0.26), urinary tract infection (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.74-1.78, p = 0.53), and vaginal bulge (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93-1.25, p = 0.32). There were instances of more serious complications in group 1, i.e., the mesh group. However, AVP cure rate was significantly higher in the mesh group (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.34-1.55, p < 0.00001). The cure rate was not significantly dependent on patient satisfaction (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96-1.26, p = 0.16) or postoperative sexual function (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90-1.11, p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical repair with the mesh procedure appears to be a better choice for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse.
Authors: Márcia M Dias; Rodrigo de A Castro; Maria Augusta T Bortolini; Carlos A Delroy; Paulo C F Martins; Manoel J B C Girão; Marair G F Sartori Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: P K Sand; S Koduri; R W Lobel; H A Winkler; J Tomezsko; P J Culligan; R Goldberg Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Christine E Skala; Karin Renezeder; Stefan Albrich; Alexander Puhl; Rosa M Laterza; Gert Naumann; Heinz Koelbl Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2011-08-06 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Carlos A Delroy; Rodrigo de A Castro; Márcia M Dias; Paulo C Feldner; Maria Augusta T Bortolini; Manoel J B C Girão; Marair G F Sartori Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 2.894