Are Recurrence Rates for “Traditional” Transvaginal Prolapse Repairs Really that High? What Does the Evidence Show?
- Alex GomelskyAffiliated withLouisiana State University Health – Shreveport Email author
- , Randy VinceAffiliated withLouisiana State University Health – Shreveport
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common and bothersome condition. Multiple methods for surgical repair exist, and much attention has been given to improving the efficacy of repair by implementing mesh interposition. Standard (native tissue-based) repairs in the anterior compartment have long been thought to be associated with high anatomical recurrence rates and the currently available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) support this thinking. However, subjective improvement in pelvic pressure and bulging and quality of life indices are similarly improved in both standard and mesh-augmented repairs. No RCTs are available to compare standard and mesh-augmented repairs in the posterior compartment. Despite the presence of RCTs, the data is often inconsistent and questions remain regarding the optimal criteria to describe POP recurrence. While there is a role for both types of repair, the optimal patient scenario is not known.
KeywordsPelvic organ prolapse Outcomes Anterior colporrhaphy Posterior colporrhaphy Transvaginal mesh Quality of life
- Are Recurrence Rates for “Traditional” Transvaginal Prolapse Repairs Really that High? What Does the Evidence Show?
Current Urology Reports
Volume 14, Issue 3 , pp 262-267
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Current Science Inc.
- Additional Links
- Pelvic organ prolapse
- Anterior colporrhaphy
- Posterior colporrhaphy
- Transvaginal mesh
- Quality of life
- Industry Sectors