Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment

Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment

Author Brandao da Silveira, Simone dos Reis Google Scholar
Haddad, Jorge Milhem Google Scholar
Katalin de Jarmy-Di Bella, Zsuzsanna Ilona Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Nastri, Fernanda Google Scholar
Markos Kawabata, Miriam Goncalves Google Scholar
Carramao, Silvia da Silva Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Claudinei Alves Autor UNIFESP Google Scholar
Baracat, Edmund Chada Google Scholar
Flores Auge, Antonio Pedro Google Scholar
Institution Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
Irmandade Santa Casa Misericordia São Paulo
Abstract This trial aimed to compare the outcomes of native vaginal tissue repair versus polypropylene mesh repair for the treatment of severe genital prolapse.This multicenter randomized trial included 184 women, with POP-Q stage 3 or 4. They were randomly assigned to undergo surgical treatment using native tissue repair (n = 90) or synthetic mesh repair (n = 94). Native tissue repair surgery was performed according to site-specific defects, including sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical defects. Mesh repair (Prolift (TM)) was performed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Hysterectomy was performed in all cases of uterine prolapse. Statistical tests were used to compare between-group and within-group differences before the surgery and at 1-year follow-up. We considered cure to have occurred when the POP-Q point evaluation was equal to or less than 0 and POP-Q point C better than or equal to half the total vaginal length (TVL) after 1 year. the patients answered the Prolapse Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (PQoL) and the Sexual Quotient Female Version (QS-F) questionnaire.Both groups were homogeneous preoperatively. There were no differences between the groups in operative time, complications or pain. At 1-year follow-up, anatomical cure rates were better in the mesh group in the anterior compartment (p = 0.019). Significant improvement in PQoL scores at 1-year follow up were observed in each group; between-group comparisons of changes in PQoL scores revealed greater improvement in the mesh group.Both techniques were effective. Anatomical efficacy was superior in the mesh group regarding the anterior compartment; quality of life changes were also greater in the mesh group. Complications were significantly higher in the mesh group.
Keywords Genital prolapse
Mesh repair
Native vaginal tissue repair
Language English
Date 2015-03-01
Published in International Urogynecology Journal. London: Springer London Ltd, v. 26, n. 3, p. 335-342, 2015.
ISSN 0937-3462 (Sherpa/Romeo, impact factor)
Publisher Springer
Extent 335-342
Access rights Closed access
Type Article
Web of Science ID WOS:000349956700005

Show full item record


File Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)




My Account