section name header

Evidence summaries

Native Tissue Versus Biological Graft in Anterior Compartment Pelvic Organ Prolapse

In anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse biological graft repair or absorbable mesh appears to give minimal advantage compared with native tissue repair. Ppolypropylene mesh appears to decrease the risk of recurrence and repeat of surgery but increase the risk of repeat surgery for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence and mesh exposure (composite outcome) compared with native tissue repair. Level of evidence: "B"

Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by study limitations (unclear allocation concealment and or assessment of outcome).

Summary

A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 33 studies with a total of 3332 subjects. Recurrence after traditional native tissue repair (anterior colporrhaphy) in anterior compartment prolapse is not unusual. When native tissue was compared with biological graft, there was no difference in repeat surgery, stress urinary incontinence, or dyspareunia, but increased risk of recurrence of prolapse (table T1; moderate quality evidence). When native tissue was compared with polypropylene mesh, there was increased risk of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse (moderate quality evidence), no difference in SUI or dyspareunia, but decreased risk for repeat surgery for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence or mesh exposure (compsite outcome; moderate quality evidence) (table T2). When native tissue was compared with absorbable mesh, there was no clear diffrence in awareness of prolapse or repeat surgery for prolapse (low quality evidence), but increased risk for recurrent anterior compartment prolapse (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.06; 3 trials, n=268; moderate-quality evidence).

Native tissue versus biological graft in women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse

Outcome (1-2 years)Relative effect(95% CI)Assumed risk - Control - Biological graftCorresponding risk - Native tissue (95% CI)No of participants(studies)
Awareness of prolapseRR 0.98 (0.52 to 1.82)124 / 1000122 / 1000(65 to 226)552(5)
Repeat surgery for prolapseRR 1.02 (0.53 to 1.97)44 / 100045 / 1000(23 to 86)650(7)
Recurrent anterior compartment prolapseRR 1.32(1.06 to 1.65)257 / 1000340 / 1000(273 to 424)701(8)
Stress urinary incontinenceRR 1.44(0.79 to 2.64)130 / 1000187 / 1000(102 to 342)218(2)

Native tissue versus polypropylene mesh for women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse

Outcome (1-3 years)Relative effect(95% CI)Assumed risk - Control - Polypropylene meshCorresponding risk - Native tissue (95% CI)No of participants(studies)
Awareness of prolapseRR 1.77 (1.37 to 2.28)130 / 1000230 / 1000(178 to 297)1133(9)
Repeat surgery for prolapseRR 2.03(1.15 to 3.58)18 / 100037 / 1000(21 to 66)1629(12)
Recurrent anterior compartment prolapseRR 3.01(2.52 to 3.60)126 / 1000379 / 1000(317 to 453)1976(16)
Repeat surgery for prolapse, SUI or mesh exposureRR 0.59(0.41 to 0.83)97 / 100054 / 10001527(12)

Clinical comments

Note

Date of latest search:23 August 2016

    References

    • Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K et al. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;(11):CD004014. [PubMed]

Primary/Secondary Keywords