Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of the application of adjuvant material in the repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapsed
- First Online:
This study is a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of the application of adjuvant material in the repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse and a sub-category analysis of the use of nonabsorbable synthetic mesh, biological graft and absorbable synthetic mesh.
Pubmed, Embase and Ovid databases were searched for published randomized controlled trials from 1980 to February 2012 on the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse with adjuvant materials. A comprehensive meta-analysis applying Revman5.1 analysis software was performed.
A total of 20 randomized controlled trials including 2,313 participants were recognized. The result showed that repair with adjuvant materials was better and more effective; nevertheless, use of adjuvant materials resulted in longer duration of surgery and more peri-operative bleeding when compared with the control group, but no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding visceral injury, postoperative pain, urinary tract infection rate, new stress incontinence and new dyspareunia.
Adjuvant material is worthy of clinical popularization, especially the biological graft type because of its lower anatomy failure rate and no difference in safety compared with the control group. However, exposure to adjuvant materials and erosion rate are high, which are the most important aspects to be improved.
KeywordsAnterior vaginal wall prolapse Repair Adjuvant materials Efficacy Safety
- 7.Winters JC, Fitzgerald MP, Barber MD (2006) The use of synthetic mesh in female pelvic reconstructive surgery. BJU Int 98(Suppl 1):70–6 (discussion 77)Google Scholar
- 9.Foon R, Toozs-Hobson P, Latthe PM (2008) Adjuvant materials in anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery: a systematic review of effectiveness and complications. Int Urogynecol J 19:1697–1706Google Scholar
- 11.Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, et al. Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364(19):1826–1836Google Scholar
- 14.Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heinonen PK et al (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110(2 II):455–462Google Scholar
- 19.Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(3):235.e1–235.e8Google Scholar
- 20.Feldner PC Jr, Castro RA, Cipolotti LA et al (2010) Anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial of SIS graft versus traditional colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J 21:1057–1063Google Scholar
- 22.Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I (2008) A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(4):467–471Google Scholar
- 23.Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D et al (2011) 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 Int J Obstet Gynaecol 118(12):1518–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Del Roy C (2011) A randomized controlled trial study, to compare colporrhaphy versus NAZCA TC™, macroporous polypropylene mesh, in surgical treatment to greater anterior vaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 22(Suppl 2):S860Google Scholar
- 26.Duggan P, Barry C (2011) Anterior compartment prolapse: Short term results and quality of life in women randomised to mesh or traditional repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 22(Suppl 2):S894–S895Google Scholar
- 27.Dyer K, Nguyen J, Simsiman A et al (2010) The optimal anterior repair study (OARS): a triple arm randomized double blinded clinical trial of standard colporrhaphy versus paravaginal repair with xenograft or synthetic mesh. J Pelvic Med Surg 16(5 Suppl):S68–S69Google Scholar
- 28.Rudnicki M, Teleman P, Laurikainen E et al (2011) The use of avaulta plus(R) for anterior repair, a multicenter randomised prospective controlled study. Int Urogynecol J 22(Suppl 2):S197–S1768Google Scholar
- 29.Ali S, Han HC, Lee LC (2006) A prospective randomized trial using Gynemesh PS for the repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:S221Google Scholar
- 36.Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE et al (2011) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn 30(1):2–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Stedman’s medical dictionary. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- 39.Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L, Balk EM, Clemons JL, Rogers RG, For the Systematic Review Group of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (2011) Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1384-5 Google Scholar
- 44.Claerhout F, Deprest J, Zheng F, Konstantinovic M, Lagae P, De Ridder D (2003) Longterm evaluation of the tissue response and mechanical properties of two collagen based and polypropylene implants in a rabbit model for abdominal wall repair. Neurourol Urodyn 22:516–517Google Scholar