Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Traditional native tissue vs mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Comment

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Stanford EJ, Cassidenti A, Moen MD (2012) Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Int Urogynecol J 23:19–28. doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1584-z

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dietz HP, Rane A, Frazer M, Lim Y (2012) Comment on Stanford et al.: traditional native tissue vs mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Int Urogynecol J 23:1317. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1871-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stanford E, Moen M, Cassidenti A (2012) Traditional native tissue vs mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Reply. Int Urogynecol J 23:1319–1320. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1872-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004014

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chmielewski L, Walters MD, Weber AM, Barber MD (2011) Reanalysis of a randomized trial of 3 techniques of anterior colporrhaphy using clinically relevant definitions of success. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:69.e1–69.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1299–1304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, Wang W, Schaffer J (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:795–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Miller D, Lucente V, Babin E, Beach P, Jones P, Robinson D (2011) Prospective clinical assessment of the transvaginal mesh technique for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse-5-year results. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 17:139–143

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cosson M, Rosenthal C, Debodinance P, Berrocal J, Clavé H, Gauld J, Jacquetin B (2010) TVM group: Trans-vaginal mesh technique for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: 5 years prospective follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 21(Suppl 1):S84–S85

    Google Scholar 

  10. Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:1826–1836

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117:242–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ek M, Altman D, Gunnarsson J, Falconer C, Tegerstedt G (2012) Clinical efficacy of a trocar-guided mesh kit for repairing lateral defects. Int Urogynecol J. doi:10.007/s00192-012-1833-9

  13. Dietz HP (2012) Mesh in prolapse surgery: an imaging perspective. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.12272

  14. Dietz HP (2012) What’s wrong with the debate on mesh surgery? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 52:313–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dwyer PL, Riss P (2012) The mesh debate. Int Urogynecol J 23:1–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Walters AL, Dacey KT, Zemlyak AY, Lincourt AE, Heniford BT (2012) Medical malpractice and hernia repair: an analysis of case law. J Surg Res [Epub ahead of print]

Download references

Conflicts of interest

B. Jacquetin holds the patent for TVM, for which he received royalties from Ethicon (the Prolift® is withdrawn from the global market) and had a consultancy position for Ethicon.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UroGynecology Unit, Gynecology, Obstetrics and Human Reproduction Department, Estaing University Hospital, 1 place Lucie Aubrac, 63033, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    B. Jacquetin

Authors
  1. B. Jacquetin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Jacquetin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacquetin, B. Traditional native tissue vs mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Comment. Int Urogynecol J 24, 181–182 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1974-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1974-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation