Advertisement

Native tissue repair (NTR) versus transvaginal mesh interventions for the treatment of anterior vaginal prolapse: Systematic review and meta-analysis

      Highlights

      • Mesh repair was associated with a higher anatomical cure rate than native tissue repair when the follow-up was up to 24 months.
      • No differences were observed in the risk of re-operation between native tissue repair and mesh augmentation.
      • Pooled risk differences in the incidence of post-surgical and late complications were higher for the mesh repair intervention.

      Abstract

      The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare native tissue repair (NTR) against transvaginal mesh augmentation for the repair of anterior vaginal prolapse. A total of 2289 articles were found but only 27 (24.8 %) were included in the review. Guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were followed to guide the process of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The quality of the observational studies was evaluated according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, whereas the quality of randomized control trials (RCT) was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias scale. The mesh repair intervention was associated with a higher anatomical cure rate in comparison with NTR repair when the follow-up was ≤24 months [pooled risk difference (95 % CI): −0.18 % (−0.22 %; 0.13 %); p-value: <0.0001; I2: 36.0 %]. Studies reporting anatomical failure had similar findings [pooled risk difference (95 % CI): 0.17 % (0.01 %; 0.33 %); p-value: 0.03; I2: 88.6 %]. No differences in the risk of re-operation were observed between NTR repair and mesh augmentation. Pooled risk differences in the incidence of post-surgical and late complications were higher for the mesh repair intervention [−0.05 % (95 % CI: −0.10 %; 0.00 %) p-value: 0.05; I2: 68.3 %] [−0.05 % (95 % CI: −0.14 %; 0.03 %) p-value: 0.25; I2: 82.0 %]. Women who underwent mesh repair reported greater satisfaction than women who underwent NTR [pooled risk difference (95 % CI): −0.07 % (−0.16 %; 0.02 %); p-value: 0.15; I2: 65.3 %]. In conclusion, mesh repair surgery had higher anatomical cure and satisfaction rates, with no differences in re-operation rate, but had higher post-surgical and late complications in comparison with NTR.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Maturitas
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Subak L.L.
        • Waetjen L.E.
        • van den Eeden S.
        • Thom D.H.
        • Vittinghoff E.
        • Brown J.S.
        Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 2001 Oct; 98646e51
        • Glazener C.
        • Breeman S.
        • Elders A.
        • Hemming C.
        • Cooper K.
        • Freeman R.
        • et al.
        Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT).
        Lancet. 2017; 28: 381-392
        • Glazener C.
        • Breeman S.
        • Elders A.
        • Hemming C.
        • Cooper K.G.
        • Freeman R.M.
        • Smith A.
        • Hagen S.
        • Montgomery I.
        • Kilonzo M.
        • Boyers D.
        • McDonald A.
        • McPherson G.
        • MacLennan G.
        • Norrie J.
        • Reid F.M.
        • PROSPECT study group
        Mesh inlay, mesh kit or native tissue repair for women having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery: randomised controlled trial (PROSPECT).
        BJOG. 2020 Jul; 127: 1002-1013
        • da Silveira S.D.R.B.
        • Auge A.P.
        • Jarmy-Dibella Z.I.
        • Margarido P.F.
        • Carramao S.
        • Alves Rodrigues C.
        • Doumouchtsis S.K.
        • Chada Baracat E.
        • Milhem Haddad J.
        A multicenter, randomized trial comparing pelvic organ prolapse surgical treatment with native tissue and synthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up study.
        Neurourol. Urodyn. 2020 Mar; 39: 1002-1011
        • Page M.J.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • Boutron I.
        • Hoffmann T.C.
        • Mulrow C.D.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2021; 372n71
        • Sterne J.A.C.
        • Savović J.
        • Page M.J.
        • Elbers R.G.
        • Blencowe N.S.
        • Boutron I.
        • Cates C.J.
        • Cheng H.-Y.
        • Corbett M.S.
        • Eldridge S.M.
        • Hernán M.A.
        • Hopewell S.
        • Hróbjartsson A.
        • Junqueira D.R.
        • Jüni P.
        • Kirkham J.J.
        • Lasserson T.
        • Li T.
        • McAleenan A.
        • Reeves B.C.
        • Shepperd S.
        • Shrier I.
        • Stewart L.A.
        • Tilling K.
        • White I.R.
        • Whiting P.F.
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
        BMJ. 2019; 366l4898
        • Rudnicki M.
        • Laurikainen E.
        • Pogosean R.
        • Kinne I.
        • Jakobsson U.
        • Teleman P.
        A 3-year follow-up after anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial.
        BJOG. 2016 Jan; 123: 136-142
        • Curtiss N.
        • Duckett J.
        A long-term cohort study of surgery for recurrent prolapse comparing mesh augmented anterior repairs to anterior colporrhaphy.
        Gynecol. Surg. 2018; 15: 1
        • Gillor M.
        • Langer S.
        • Dietz H.P.
        A long-term comparative study of Uphold™ transvaginal mesh kit against anterior colporrhaphy.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2020 Apr; 31: 793-797
        • Da Silveira S.D.R.B.
        • Auge A.P.
        • Jarmy-Dibella Z.I.
        • Margarido P.F.
        • Carramao S.
        • Alves Rodrigues C.
        • Doumouchtsis S.K.
        • Chada Baracat E.
        • Milhem Haddad J.
        A multicenter, randomized trial comparing pelvic organ prolapse surgical treatment with native tissue and synthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up study.
        Neurourol. Urodyn. 2020 Mar; 39: 1002-1011
        • Sivaslioglu A.A.
        • Unlubilgin E.
        • Dolen I.
        A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Apr; 19: 467-471
        • Lamblin G.
        • Van-Nieuwenhuyse A.
        • Chabert P.
        • Lebail-Carval K.
        • Moret S.
        • Mellier G.
        A randomized controlled trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between vaginal colposuspension and transvaginal mesh.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2014 Jul; 25: 961-970
        • Robert M.
        • Girard I.
        • Brennand E.
        • Tang S.
        • Birch C.
        • Murphy M.
        • Ross S.
        Absorbable mesh augmentation compared with no mesh for anterior prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet. Gynecol. 2014 Feb; 123: 288-294
        • Turgal M.
        • Sivaslioglu A.
        • Yildiz A.
        • Dolen I.
        Anatomical and functional assessment of anterior colporrhaphy versus polypropylene mesh surgery in cystocele treatment.
        Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2013 Oct; 170: 555-558
        • El-Nazer M.A.
        • Gomaa I.A.
        • Ismail Madkour W.A.
        • Swidan K.H.
        • El-Etriby M.A.
        Anterior colporrhaphy versus repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a comparative clinical study.
        Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2012 Oct; 286: 965-972
        • Altman D.
        • Väyrynen T.
        • Engh M.E.
        • Axelsen S.
        • Falconer C.
        • Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group
        Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse.
        N. Engl. J. Med. 2011 May 12; 364: 1826-1836
        • de Tayrac R.
        • Cornille A.
        • Eglin G.
        • Guilbaud O.
        • Mansoor A.
        • Alonso S.
        • Fernandez H.
        Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2013 Oct; 24: 1651-1661
        • Chang T.C.
        • Hsiao S.M.
        • Wu P.C.
        • Chen C.H.
        • Wu W.Y.
        • Lin H.H.
        Comparison of clinical outcomes between tailored transvaginal mesh surgery and native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse.
        J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2019 Dec; 118: 1623-1632
        • Ahmed A.A.
        • Abdellatif A.H.
        • El-Helaly H.A.
        • Tagreda I.A.
        • El-Feky M.M.
        • Agha M.M.
        • Abdelraouf A.G.
        • Abdelrahim A.F.
        Concomitant transobturator tape and anterior colporrhaphy versus transobturator subvesical mesh for cystocele-associated stress urinary incontinence.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2020 Aug; 31: 1633-1640
        • Balzarro M.
        • Rubilotta E.
        • Porcaro A.B.
        • Trabacchin N.
        • Sarti A.
        • Cerruto M.A.
        • Siracusano S.
        • Artibani W.
        Long-term follow-up of anterior vaginal repair: a comparison among colporrhaphy, colporrhaphy with reinforcement by xenograft, and mesh.
        Neurourol. Urodyn. 2018 Jan; 37: 278-283
        • Allègre L.
        • Callewaert G.
        • Alonso S.
        • Cornille A.
        • Fernandez H.
        • Eglin G.
        • de Tayrac R.
        Long-term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing trans-obturator vaginal mesh with native tissue repair in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2020 Apr; 31: 745-753
        • Lo T.S.
        • Pue L.B.
        • Tan Y.L.
        • Wu P.Y.
        Long-term outcomes of synthetic transobturator nonabsorbable anterior mesh versus anterior colporrhaphy in symptomatic, advanced pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2014 Feb; 25: 257-264
        • Jonsson Funk M.
        • Visco A.G.
        • Weidner A.C.
        • Pate V.
        • Wu J.M.
        Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2013 Aug; 24: 1279-1285
        • Nüssler E.
        • Kesmodel U.S.
        • Löfgren M.
        • Nüssler E.K.
        Operation for primary cystocele with anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2015 Mar; 26: 359-366
        • Nüssler E.K.
        • Greisen S.
        • Kesmodel U.S.
        • Löfgren M.
        • Bek K.M.
        • Glavind-Kristensen M.
        Operation for recurrent cystocele with anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh: patient reported outcomes.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2013 Nov; 24: 1925-1931
        • Steures P.
        • Milani A.L.
        • van Rumpt-van de Geest D.A.
        • Kluivers K.B.
        • Withagen M.I.J.
        Partially absorbable mesh or native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2019 Apr; 30: 565-573
        • Lunardelli J.L.
        • Auge A.P.
        • Lemos N.L.
        • Carramão Sda S.
        • de Oliveira A.L.
        • Duarte E.
        • Aoki T.
        Polypropylene mesh vs. site-specific repair in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: preliminary results of a randomized clinical trial.
        Rev. Col. Bras. Cir. 2009 Jul; 36: 210-216
        • Vollebregt A.
        • Fischer K.
        • Gietelink D.
        • van der Vaart C.H.
        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. 2011 Nov; 118: 1518-1527
        • Minassian V.A.
        • Parekh M.
        • Poplawsky D.
        • Gorman J.
        • Litzy L.
        Randomized controlled trial comparing two procedures for anterior vaginal wall prolapse.
        Neurourol. Urodyn. 2014 Jan; 33: 72-77
        • Chmielewski L.
        • Walters M.D.
        • Weber A.M.
        • Barber M.D.
        Reanalysis of a randomized trial of 3 techniques of anterior colporrhaphy using clinically relevant definitions of success.
        Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011 Jul; 205: 69.e1-69.e8
        • Handel L.N.
        • Frenkl T.L.
        • Kim Y.H.
        Results of cystocele repair: a comparison of traditional anterior colporrhaphy, polypropylene mesh and porcine dermis.
        J. Urol. 2007 Jul; 178 (discussion 156): 153-156
        • Su T.H.
        • Lau H.H.
        • Huang W.C.
        • Hsieh C.H.
        • Chang R.C.
        • Su C.H.
        Single-incision mesh repair versus traditional native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: results of a cohort study.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2014 Jul; 25: 901-908
        • Dias M.M.
        • de A Castro R.
        • Bortolini M.A.
        • Delroy C.A.
        • Martins P.C.
        • Girão M.J.
        • Sartori M.G.
        Two-years results of native tissue versus vaginal mesh repair in the treatment of anterior prolapse according to different success criteria: a randomized controlled trial.
        Neurourol. Urodyn. 2016 Apr; 35: 509-514
        • Maher C.
        • Feiner B.
        • Baessler K.
        • Schmid C.
        Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women.
        Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013 Apr 30; CD004014
        • Maher C.
        • Feiner B.
        • Baessler K.
        • Christmann-Schmid C.
        • Haya N.
        • Marjoribanks J.
        Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.
        Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016; CD012079
        • Walter J.E.
        A comparison of the use of mesh to native tissue in the management of vaginal vault prolapse.
        Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2019 Jan; 54: 73-88
        • Reid F.M.
        • Elders A.
        • Breeman S.
        • Freeman R.M.
        • PROSPECT study group
        How common are complications following polypropylene mesh, biological xenograft and native tissue surgery for pelvic organ prolapse? A secondary analysis from the PROSPECT trial.
        BJOG. 2021 Dec; 128: 2180-2189
        • Glazener C.
        • Breeman S.
        • Elders A.
        • Hemming C.
        • Cooper K.
        • Freeman R.
        • Smith A.
        • Hagen S.
        • Montgomery I.
        • Kilonzo M.
        • Boyers D.
        • McDonald A.
        • McPherson G.
        • MacLennan G.
        • Norrie J.
        Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical options for the management of anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort study - results from the PROSPECT study.
        Health Technol. Assess. 2016 Dec; 20: 1-452
        • Rada M.P.
        • Jones S.
        • Falconi G.
        • Milhem Haddad J.
        • Betschart C.
        • Pergialiotis V.
        • Doumouchtsis S.K.
        CHORUS: An International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women's Health. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on pelvic organ prolapse for the development of core outcome sets.
        Neurourol. Urodyn. 2020 Mar; 39: 880-889
        • Tailor V.
        • Digesu A.
        • Swift S.E.
        Update in transvaginal grafts: the role of lightweight meshes, biologics, and hybrid grafts in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
        Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. N. Am. 2021 Sep; 48: 515-533
        • O'Shaughnessy D.
        • Grande D.
        • El-Neemany D.
        • Sajjan S.
        • Pillalamarri N.
        • Shalom D.
        • Winkler H.
        Evaluation of the histological and biomechanical properties of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate scaffold for pelvic organ prolapse, compared with polypropylene mesh in a rabbit model.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2021 Jun 14; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04851-6
        • Bickhaus J.A.
        • Fraser M.O.
        • Weidner A.C.
        • Jayes F.L.
        • Amundsen C.L.
        • Gall K.
        • Miller A.T.
        • Marini F.C.
        • Robboy S.J.
        • Siddiqui N.Y.
        Polycarbonate urethane mesh: a new material for pelvic reconstruction.
        Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2021 Feb 1; 27 (PMID: 33105344): e469-e475https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000964
        • Dykes N.
        • Karmakar D.
        • Hayward L.
        Lightweight transvaginal mesh is associated with lower mesh exposure rates than heavyweight mesh.
        Int. Urogynecol. J. 2020 Sep; 31: 1785-1791
        • Ai F.F.
        • Mao M.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Kang J.
        • Zhu L.
        The in vivo biocompatibility of titanized polypropylene lightweight mesh is superior to that of conventional polypropylene mesh.
        Neurourol. Urodyn. 2020 Jan; 39: 96-107
        • Ferry P.
        • Bertherat P.
        • Gauthier A.
        • Villet R.
        • Del Piano F.
        • Hamid D.
        • Fernandez H.
        • Broux P.L.
        • Salet-Lizée D.
        • Vincens E.
        • Ntshaykolo P.
        • Debodinance P.
        • Pocholle P.
        • Thirouard Y.
        • de Tayrac R.
        Transvaginal treatment of anterior and apical genital prolapses using an ultra lightweight mesh: Restorelle® Direct Fix™. A retrospective study on feasibility and morbidity.
        J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2018 Nov; 47: 443-449