International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 181–182 | Cite as

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

Letter to the Editor

References

  1. 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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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:CD004014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1299–1304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 192:795–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 17:139–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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–S85Google Scholar
  10. 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 364:1826–1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 117:242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 13.
    Dietz HP (2012) Mesh in prolapse surgery: an imaging perspective. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1002/uog.12272
  14. 14.
    Dietz HP (2012) What’s wrong with the debate on mesh surgery? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 52:313–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dwyer PL, Riss P (2012) The mesh debate. Int Urogynecol J 23:1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UroGynecology Unit, Gynecology, Obstetrics and Human Reproduction DepartmentEstaing University HospitalClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations