Altman et al1414 Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C; Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 2011; 364(19):1826-1836
|
410 |
Prolift |
1 year |
S < 2 + UDI (question 16)60.8 × 34.5% |
UDIPISQ-12 |
“asymptomatic”75.4 × 62.1%UDI-524.2 × 17.7UDI-08.7 × 12.3PISQ-12 |
Duration52.6 × 33.5 minuteBlood loss84.7 × 35.4 mLBladder perforation7 × 1Pain 5 × 0Retention16 × 6Cystoscopy11 × 1 |
Extrusion3.2% |
Greater short time success. with greater complications |
de Tayrac et al1515 de Tayrac R, Cornille A, Eglin G, et al. Comparison between transobturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24(10):1651-1661
|
163 |
Ugytex |
1 year |
S < 289 × 64% |
PFDIPFIQPISQ-12MHU |
PFDI (question 5)31.3 ×52.2PISQ-1228.5 × 30.3“satisfied”96 × 92% |
Dyspareunia20 × 27.3%Hospital stay4.3 × 4.7 daysAbnormal bleeding1 × 3Pain28 × 15% |
Extrusion9.5% |
Greater anatomic success. with slight increase in complication rates |
Delroy et al1616 Delroy CA, Castro RdeA, Dias MM, et al. The use of transvaginal synthetic mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24(11): 1899-1907
|
79 |
Nazca TC |
1 year |
S < 282.5 × 56.4% |
P-QOL |
General improvement (not significant) |
Duration99.1 × 46 minutesHospital stay3.2 × 3.3 daysAbnormal bleeding45 × 30.8%Dyspareunia5 × 10.2% |
Extrusion5.0% |
Anatomical improvement with equivalent complications and QOL |
El-Nazer et al1717 El-Nazer MA, Gomaa IA, Ismail Madkour WA, Swidan KH, El- Etriby MA. Anterior colporrhaphy versus repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a comparative clinical study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286(4):965-972
|
40 |
Gynemesh |
2 years |
S < 295 × 70%PFMS (perineal strength) |
P-QOL |
“bulge” resolution94.7 × 68.4%“Voiding dysfunction”resolution93.3 × 66.7% |
Duration75 × 76 minutesHospital stay2.6 × 2.6 daysBlood loss215.5 × 219.5 mLBladder perforation: 0 |
Extrusion5%Recurrence5 × 15% |
Anatomical and functional improvement |
Gutman et al1818 Gutman RE, Nosti PA, Sokol AI, et al. Three-year outcomes of vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122(4):770-777
|
65 |
Prolift |
3 years |
S < 245 × 43% |
PFDIPFIQPGI-IPISQ-12 |
“bulge” resolution92 × 81%“feels better”88 × 81% |
Dyspareunia2 × 1 |
Extrusion15%Reoperation13 × 0% |
Non significant anatomical and subjective improvement in both groups |
Hiltunen et al1919 Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, et al. Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(2 Pt 2):455-462
|
202 |
Parietene (manufact.) |
1 year |
S < 293.3 × 61.5% |
“symptoms” |
“bulge” resolution93 × 94%Voiding dysfunction9 × 8%De novo incontinence23 × 10% |
Duration73 × 58 minutesBlood loss190 × 114 mLBladder perforation1 × 0Urinary retention13 × 5 |
Extrusion17.3%Recurrence(symptomatic)4 × 15% |
Anatomical improvement with recurrence reduction and bigger incontinence rates |
Lamblin et al2020 Lamblin G, Van-Nieuwenhuyse A, Chabert P, Lebail-Carval K, Moret S, Mellier G. A randomized controlled trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25(7): 961-970
|
68 |
Perigree |
2 years |
S < 2100 × 84.4% |
PFDI-20PFIQ-7POP-QOLVAS“sexuality” |
PFIQ-728 × 23PFID-2049 × 40 |
Duration69.7 × 74.6 minuteHospital stay4.4 × 4.6 daysAbnormal bleeding0 × 3%Retention0 × 5.8% |
Extrusion6%Recurrence0 × 11.7% |
Greater anatomic results with equivalent QOL and slightly greater morbidity |
Nguyen et al2121 Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111(4):891-898
|
76 |
Perigree |
2 years |
S < 289 × 55% |
PFDI-20PFIQ-7PISQ-12 |
PFDI-2034+ −31 × 45+ -32PFIQ-714+ −23 × 23+ -31PISQ-1234 × 33 |
Hemoglobin drop2.4 × 1.8Dyspareunia9 × 16% |
Extrusion5%Recurrence0 × 3% |
Better anatomical results (best for patients with high risk for recurrence) |
Nieminen et al2222 Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, et al. Outcomes after anterior vaginalwall repairwithmesh: a randomized, controlled trialwith a 3. year follow-up.AmJObstetGynecol 2010;203(3):235.e1-235.e8
|
202 |
Parietene (manufactured) |
3 years |
S < 291 × 65% |
Non validated score |
Score “bulge”1.16 × 1.43 |
De novo incontinence7 × 5% |
Extrusion19%Recurrence13 × 41%Reoperation11 × 18% |
Better anatomical results with equivalent symptom resolution. but high extrusion |
Sivaslioglu et al2323 Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I. A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008;19(4):467-471
|
90 |
Parietene |
1 year |
S < 291 × 72% |
P-QOL |
P-QOL6.2+ -5.5 ×7.5+ -6.2 |
Dyspareunia4.6 × 0%De novo incontinence0 × 7% |
Extrusion6.9%Failure9.3 × 28.5% |
Better anatomical results |
Tamanini et al2424 Tamanini JTN, Tamanini MMM, Castro RCO, et al. Treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse with and without polypropylene mesh: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial - Part I. Int Braz J Urol 2013;39(4):519-530
|
100 |
Naxca TC |
1 year |
S < 283.7 × 55.5% |
ICIQ-VS |
QOL and sexuality |
Dyspareunia2.3 × 0%bleeding (< 500 mL)2.3 × 1.8% |
Extrusion9.3% |
Better anatomical results without QOL difference |
Vollebregt et al2525 Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH. Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG 2011;118(12):1518-1527
|
125 |
Avaulta |
1 year |
S < 291 × 41% |
UDIIIQ |
QOL equivalent (asymptomatic recurrences) |
Dyspareunia15 × 9%Blood loss 77 × 69 mLHospital stay 3 × 3 days |
Extrusion 4%Reoperation0 × 5% |
Better anatomical results. without significant QOL difference |