[Biopharmaceuticals and biosimilars in oncology: where are we?].

F. Longo,A. Maturo

Tumori

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Long-term treatment outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery versus anterior-posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Qi Cao,Yi-Song Chen,Jing-Xin Ding,Chang-Dong Hu,Wei-Wei Feng,Wei-Guo Hu,Ke-Qin Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12040

2013-01-01

Abstract:Background In spite of rapid growth in the use of vaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery, there are few reports on the long-term efficacy and safety of mesh-augmented repairs. Aims To compare the long-term outcomes of modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) versus traditional anteriorposterior colporrhaphy (APC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods This retrospective cohort study involved 158 women who underwent surgical management of prolapse with MPFR (n=84) or APC (n=74) in the period between January 2007 and June 2008. Main outcome measures included pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement, Short Form-20 Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) questionnaires, perioperative outcomes, complications and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. Statistical analysis included comparison of means (Wilcoxon test or Student's t-test) and proportions (2 test). Results Anatomical success rate for MPFR and APC was 88.1 versus 64.9% (P=0.001), with a median follow-up of 55 versus 56months (range 4966months, P=0.341). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and a greater improvement was seen in MPFR group than in APC group (P=0.013). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mesh erosion rate was 3.6%. Conclusion Modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh had better anatomical and functional outcomes than APC at 45years postoperation, as an alternative, cheap and effective treatment option to mesh kits for the management of POP.
Long‐term Treatment Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Anterior–posterior Colporrhaphy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Qi Cao,Yisong Chen,Jing Ding,Chengchao Hu,Wen Feng,Weiguo Hu,Keqin Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12040

2013-01-01

Abstract:In spite of rapid growth in the use of vaginally placed mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery, there are few reports on the long-term efficacy and safety of mesh-augmented repairs.To compare the long-term outcomes of modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) versus traditional anterior-posterior colporrhaphy (APC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).This retrospective cohort study involved 158 women who underwent surgical management of prolapse with MPFR (n = 84) or APC (n = 74) in the period between January 2007 and June 2008. Main outcome measures included pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement, Short Form-20 Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) questionnaires, perioperative outcomes, complications and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. Statistical analysis included comparison of means (Wilcoxon test or Student's t-test) and proportions (χ(2) test).Anatomical success rate for MPFR and APC was 88.1 versus 64.9% (P = 0.001), with a median follow-up of 55 versus 56 months (range 49-66 months, P = 0.341). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and a greater improvement was seen in MPFR group than in APC group (P = 0.013). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. The mesh erosion rate was 3.6%.Modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh had better anatomical and functional outcomes than APC at 4-5 years postoperation, as an alternative, cheap and effective treatment option to mesh kits for the management of POP.
Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

Ellen Yeung,Kaven Baessler,Corina Christmann-Schmid,Nir Haya,Zhuoran Chen,Sheila A Wallace,Alex Mowat,Christopher Maher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012079.pub2

IF: 8.4

2024-03-14

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more of the pelvic organs (uterus, vaginal apex, bladder, or bowel) into the vagina. In recent years, surgeons have increasingly used grafts in transvaginal repairs. Graft material can be synthetic or biological. The aim is to reduce prolapse recurrence and surpass the effectiveness of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse. This is a review update; the previous version was published in 2016. To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair or other grafts in the surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and two clinical trials registers (March 2022 ). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue). Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination. We included 51 RCTs (7846 women). The certainty of the evidence was largely moderate (ranging from very low to moderate). Transvaginal permanent mesh versus native tissue repair Awareness of prolapse at six months to seven years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.95; I 2 = 34%; 17 studies, 2932 women; moderate‐certainty evidence). This suggests that if 23% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 17% and 22% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair. Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95; I 2 = 35%; 17 studies, 2485 women; moderate‐certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for incontinence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.59; I 2 = 0%; 13 studies, 2206 women; moderate‐certainty evidence). However, more women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.26; I 2 = 54%; 27 studies, 3916 women; low‐certainty evidence). This suggests that if 7.1% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7.6% and 16% will require repeat surgery after permanent mesh repair. The rate of mesh exposure was 11.8% and surgery for mesh exposure was 6.1% in women who had mesh repairs. Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; I 2 = 84%; 25 studies, 3680 women; very low‐certainty evidence). Permanent transvaginal mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.88; I 2 = 0%; 17 studies, 2001 women; moderate‐certainty evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.28; I 2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1997 women; moderate‐certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.79; I 2 = 27%; 16 studies, 1308 women; moderate‐certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life outcomes; however, there was substantial heterogeneity in the data. Transvaginal absorbable mesh versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the two methods of repair at two years for the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44; 1 study, 54 women), rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40; 1 study, 66 women), or recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.70; 1 study, 66 women). The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for bladder‐related outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Transvaginal biological graft versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; I 2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1374 women; moderate‐certainty evidence), repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; I 2 = 0%; 6 studies, 899 women; moderate‐certainty evidence), and recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.29; I 2 = 53%; 9 studies, 1278 women; low‐certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life. Transvaginal permanent mesh versus any other permanent mesh or biological graft vaginal repair Sparse reporting of primary outcomes in both comparisons significantly limited any meaningful analysis. While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awar -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Long-term Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Wang Xiaojuan,Chen Yisong,Hu Changdong,Hua Keqin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01505-z

2021-01-01

Abstract:Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the overall outcomes and complications of transvaginal mesh (TVM) placement for the management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with different meshes with a greater than 10-years of follow-up. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients with POP who underwent prolapse repair surgery with placement of transvaginal mesh (Prolift kit or self-cut Gynemesh) between January 2005 and December 2010. Baseline of patient characteristics were collected from the patients' medical records. During follow-up, the anatomical outcomes were evaluated using the POP Quantification system, and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) was used to assess the response of a condition to therapy. Overall postoperative satisfaction was assessed by the following question: "What is your overall postoperative satisfaction, on a scale from 0 to 10?". Relapse-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results In total, 134 patients were included. With a median 12-year (range 10-15) follow-up, 52 patients (38.8%) underwent TVM surgery with Prolift, and Gynemesh was used 82 (61.2%). 91% patients felt that POP symptom improved based on the PGI-I scores, and most satisfied after operation. The recurrence rates of anterior, apical and posterior compartment prolapse were 5.2%, 5.2%, and 2.2%, respectively. No significant differences in POP recurrence, mesh-associated complications and urinary incontinence were noted between TVM surgery with Prolift versus Gynemesh. Conclusions Treatment of POP by TVM surgery exhibited long-term effectiveness with acceptable morbidity. The outcomes of the mesh kit were the same as those for self-cutmesh.
Effectiveness of Self-cut vs Mesh-Kit Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh for Transvaginal Treatment of Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Multicenter Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial

Juan Chen,Jiajie Yu,Abraham Morse,Guangshi Tao,Jian Gong,Binan Wang,Yuling Wang,Gulina Ababaikeli,Xiangyang Jiang,Peishu Liu,Xiaowei Zhang,Hatiguli Nisier,Ping Wang,Christian Fünfgeld,Kuanhui Huang,Heping Zhang,Xin Sun,Lan Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.31869

2022-09-01

Abstract:Importance: Transvaginal mesh (TVM) can increase the durability of vaginal surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and may be indicated in certain situations despite concerns about mesh-related complications. In addition, the expense of commercial mesh kits has limited their use. The effectiveness, safety, and cost of a self-cut mesh procedure compared with a commercial mesh-kit procedure for the surgical treatment of women with POP is unclear. Objective: To assess the 1-year effectiveness and safety of self-cut titanium-coated polypropylene mesh compared with a precut commercial mesh kit for the transvaginal surgical treatment of women with severe symptomatic POP. Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 11 hospitals in 8 provinces of China. A total of 336 women with symptomatic stage 3 to 4 POP were enrolled between January 22, 2018, and November 11, 2019, with follow-up through December 11, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive a TVM procedure using either self-cut mesh (self-cut mesh group) or a precut commercial mesh kit (mesh-kit group), both of which used the same titanium-coated polypropylene mesh. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome measure was composite surgical success at 1 year, which was defined as the absence of vaginal bulge symptoms, no additional retreatment for POP, and no vaginal prolapse at or beyond the hymen. Secondary outcomes included symptom-specific pelvic floor function and quality-of-life measures as well as perioperative complications, including mesh-related complications and hospitalization costs. Complications were categorized using the Clavien-Dindo system (with grade 1 indicating any deviation from the normal postoperative course but not requiring grade 2-4 interventions; grade 2, need for pharmacological treatment, blood transfusion, and/or total parenteral nutrition; grade 3, the need for surgical, endoscopic, and/or interventional radiological procedures; and grade 4, life threatening). Results: Among 336 female participants (mean [SD] age, 63.3 [5.9] years; all of Chinese ethnicity), 169 patients were randomized to the self-cut mesh group, and 167 were randomized to the mesh-kit group. Three patients were unavailable for follow-up after 1 year. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 162 women (95.9%) in the self-cut mesh group had outcomes that met the definition of surgical success; this result was noninferior to the surgical success rate observed in the mesh-kit group (146 women [87.4%]; risk difference, 8.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-14.3%; P = .006). The frequency of Clavien-Dindo grade 1 to 3 perioperative complications was not significant between groups (12 of 166 women [7.2%] in the self-cut mesh group vs 20 of 161 women [12.4%] in the mesh-kit group; P = .14). Vaginal mesh exposure rates in women examined at 1 year were similar (4 women [2.4%] in the self-cut mesh group vs 8 women [4.8%] in the mesh-kit group; P = .23). Median (IQR) total hospitalization costs were $3663.00 ($3258.90-$4495.10) in the self-cut mesh group vs $6144.00 ($5434.90-$7160.20) in the mesh-kit group (P < .01), representing savings of $2481.00 (40.4%) with the use of self-cut mesh. Conclusions and relevance: In this clinical trial, the composite surgical success rate of a self-cut mesh procedure was noninferior to that of a commercial mesh-kit procedure using the same titanium-coated polypropylene mesh and reduced hospitalization expenses by 40.4%. These findings suggest that the use of self-cut mesh procedures may be advantageous for the surgical treatment of some women with severe POP, particularly those in countries with low and middle income. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03283124.
Transvaginal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: one-year safety and efficacy results

Tetsuji Soda,Hiroshi Kiuchi,Yohei Koida,Takahiro Imanaka,Takeshi Oida,Yasuhiro Matsuoka,Kenichiro Sekii

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2024.01.017

IF: 1.555

2024-02-17

Urology journal

Abstract:Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) mesh by comparing conventionally used polypropylene (PP) mesh in tension-free vaginal mesh (TVM) surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods We conducted an observational cohort study of patients who underwent TVM using a PTFE or PP mesh. PTFE was used from June 2019 to May 2021, and PP mesh from January 2018 to May 2019. Outcomes included POP recurrence, perioperative complications, and patient satisfaction. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to analyze POP recurrence, comparing the time to recurrence between the two groups at 1 year after TVM. Results Of 171 patients, 104 underwent PP mesh placement (PP group) and 67 underwent PTFE mesh placement (PTFE group). POP recurrence was observed in 10 and nine patients in the PP and PTFE groups, respectively. The mean time until the recurrence in the PTFE group was significantly shorter than that in the PP group (RMST difference: -20.3 days; 95% CI, -40.1 to -0.5; P=0.044). Subgroup analysis revealed the mean time until recurrence was significantly shorter in the PTFE group for postoperative periods 3 months or less, ages >70 yrs, and POP stage ≥3. There were no intervention cases in either group and no significant differences in the perioperative complications. Patient satisfaction was greater in the PTFE group after three months postoperatively. Conclusion TVM surgery with a PTFE mesh is more prone to recurrence than that with a PP mesh, but with higher patient satisfaction. Within three months of surgery, elderly patients and those with advanced stage POP require care to prevent recurrence.

urology & nephrology
Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Vs Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: 1 Year Results of a Multicenter Randomized Study

Juan Chen,Tao Xu,Xiaowei Zhang,Keqin Hua,Mei Ji,Luwen Wang,Huicheng Xu,Jinghe Lang,Abraham Morse,Lan Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20200803.12

2020-01-01

Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Abstract:Backgrounds: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is considered the most durable operation for the repair of advanced uterovaginal prolapse. However, there is still disagreement about whether the efficacy and safety of vaginally implanted mesh to address advanced uterovaginal prolapse is comparable to sacrocolpopexy. Our goal was to evaluate the anatomical and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal mesh in a randomized trial in China. Methods: A multicenter randomized trial was carried out at 6 tertiary hospitals in China. Patients with symptomatic advanced prolapse (stages III-IV) were enrolled. Between January 2013 and June 2014, a total of 100 women were randomized. 40 laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy procedures and 42 transvaginal mesh procedures were performed. Patients were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or transvaginal mesh. Results: At 1 year, the anatomic success rate was 92.5% in the laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy arm, compared with 83.3% in the transvaginal mesh group (P=0.35). Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy was associated with better apical support. The laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy group had a longer operative time. Mesh exposures occurred in 2.5% of laparoscopic repairs vs. 2.4% of transvaginal mesh repairs. Conclusion: In a randomized trial, 1-year objective cure rates were not statistically different. However the success rate was 9.2% higher for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. The two procedures had comparable mesh exposure rates, and other complications were rare in both groups. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01762384). The date of registration was Jan 7th, 2013. URL was https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01762384?term=NCT01762384&draw=2&rank=1.
The Clinical Efficacy Of Biologic Mesh And Synthetic Mesh For Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery

T. Cao,X. Yang,X. Sun,W. Cheng,J. Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13390/j.issn.1672-1861.2017.02.004

2017-01-01

Abstract:Objective To compare clinical efficacy of biologic mesh and synthetic mesh in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse(POP).Methods 96 patients with POP at more than Ⅱ of POP quantitation (POP-Q) staging system undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery were selected and divided into two groups.Each group has 48 cases.One group was treated with Surgisis and the other was Avaulta.The perioperative,operative and postoperative data were compared.Fesults The average ofoperation time in Surgisis group was (126.4 ± 39.8)min,which was significantly more than the Avaulta.The average amount of bleeding volume in Surgisis [(130.5 ± 98.4) ml]and Avaulta [(30.5 ± 10.1) ml] had significant difference.while the postoperative temperature,urine tube indwelling time,residual urine volume of the two groups had no difference (P ＞ 0.05).At one-year follow up,the objective recurrence rate of Surgisis group is higher (25.0％ vs 8.3％),but the subjective recurrence rate is lower (6.3％).After operation,the quality of life in two groups was largely improved.Comparing the sexual quality of life,the score of Surgisis group was higher than that in Avaulta (P ＜ 0.05).There was no mesh exposure in Surgisis group,while four patients had mesh erosion in Avaulta group.They all underwent surgery.Conclusions Comparing the synthetic mesh,biologic mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery can improve the quality of life,reducing the occurrence of complications,although it takes longer time and more intraoperative blood loss in surgery.
Native tissue repair versus mesh repair in pelvic organ prolapse surgery

U. Kalkan,T. Yoldemir,E. S. Ozyurek,A. Daniilidis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2017.1366978

2017-09-05

Climacteric

Abstract:In pelvic organ prolapse, the anatomical defects develop at the anterior (anterior vaginal wall), the posterior (posterior vaginal wall) and the apical (the uterus/cervix or the apex of the vagina, vaginal vault or cuff scar after hysterectomy) compartments. These defects occur in more than one compartment. Treatment of pelvic organ prolapse is commonly surgical, aiming to restore the anatomy of structures supporting the pelvic organs. The surgical repair techniques are classified as 'native tissue repair (NTR)' when only pelvic organ support tissues are used and 'augmented repair (AR)' when some other material (prosthesis or graft) is used to reinforce the defective support system. In this review, issues related to the basic science of meshes, and NTR versus mesh or graft AR procedures for pelvic organ prolapse are discussed while considering the varying risks and benefits according to the prolapsed compartment.

obstetrics & gynecology
1473 Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Sis Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

X Wang,Y Chen,K Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.09.441

IF: 4.314

2019-01-01

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Abstract:Study ObjectiveTransvaginal mesh (TVM) results in a greater anatomic cure but more complications. We aimed to compare laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) plus colporrhaphy with a small intestine submucosa (SIS) graft versus TVM for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).DesignRetrospective study, with more than one year follow-up.SettingTertiary university-affiliated hospital.Patients or ParticipantsBetween September 2015 and November 2016, 76 patients with advanced POP who underwent LSC plus colporrhaphy with an SIS graft or TVM.InterventionsLSC plus colporrhaphy with an SIS graft or TVM.Measurements and Main ResultsData regarding surgical procedures and patient demographic variables were recorded. Anatomical outcomes were evaluated using POP quantification (POP-Q). Functional outcomes related to POP and sexual life were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7). Chi-squared and Student's t-tests were used for two independent samples. 76 patients were enrolled in this study with 26 patients in the LSC plus colporrhaphy with an SIS graft group (group A) and 50 patients with TVM group (group B). All patients in both groups demonstrated significant improvement in anatomical outcomes (p < 0.05) after surgery. PFDI-20 scores were significantly improved 12 months after operation in both groups (p < 0.001). PISQ-12 scores were significantly improved in patients after surgery, especially patients in group A (p < 0.001). Mesh exposure occurred in both groups as follows: 8 patients (30.7%) in group A and 5 patients (10%) in group B.ConclusionEven though both surgeries showed excellent results for subjective and objective outcomes, the use of an SIS graft might increase the exposure of mesh. We do not recommend LSC plus colporrhaphy with an SIS graft for advanced multiple-compartments prolapse.
Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Small Intestine Submucosa Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Junyan Wang,Xiaojuan Wang,Keqin Hua,Yisong Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5213/inj.1938014.007

2019-01-01

International Neurourology Journal

Abstract:Purpose Transvaginal mesh (TVM) results in a greater anatomic cure but more complications. We aimed to compare laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) plus colporrhaphy with the small intestine submucosa (SIS) graft versus TVM for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods Patients with advanced POP who underwent LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft or TVM at a center between September 2015 and November 2016 were studied. Anatomical outcomes were evaluated using POP quantification. Functional outcomes related to POP and sexual life were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Data regarding surgical procedures and patient demographic variables were recorded. Chi-square and Student t -tests were used for 2 independent samples. Results A total of 76 patients were enrolled in this study with 26 patients in the LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft group (group A) and 50 patients with TVM group (group B). All patients in both groups demonstrated significant improvement in anatomical outcomes (P<0.05) after surgery. PFDI-20 scores were significantly improved 12 months after operation in both groups (P<0.001). PISQ-12 scores were significantly improved in patients after surgery, especially patients in group A (P<0.001). Mesh exposure occurred in both groups as follows: 8 patients (30.7%) in group A and 5 patients (10%) in group B. Conclusions Even though both surgeries showed excellent results for subjective and objective outcomes, the use of an SIS graft might increase the exposure of polypropylene mesh. We do not recommend LSC plus colporrhaphy with the SIS graft for advanced multiple-compartments prolapse.
COMET (Composite Outcomes of Mesh vs suture Techniques for prolapse repair)- Protocol for a single blind randomized controlled multicenter trial testing surgical innovation in female pelvic surgery

Lina Roa,Maryse Larouche,Momoe Hyakutake,Erin A Brennand,Ola Malabarey,Nicole Koenig,Terry Lee,Joel Singer,Wei Zhang,Lori A Brotto,Roxana Geoffrion

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308926

IF: 3.7

2024-10-24

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) increases in incidence and severity with aging. At least 1 in 4 women seek pelvic floor care and many more suffer with concurrent symptoms of bowel, bladder and sexual dysfunction, which can have a large impact on quality of life. It is estimated that 1 in 5 women will undergo surgery for POP. POP is difficult to cure with existing surgeries and therefore treatment failure and reoperations are common. Surgical innovation in this area is urgently needed and we have developed a novel technique of bilateral sacrospinous vaginal vault fixation with synthetic mesh arms (BSSVF-M). Based on preliminary studies it may be more successful, durable and cost-effective than standard sacrospinous ligament suspension with sutures (SSLS). Preliminary development and exploration studies showed safety and efficacy of BSSVF-M. Following an established framework for research in surgical innovations, we now wish to conduct a randomized comparative effectiveness trial for assessment of this novel technique. Methods: This is a multi-center randomized controlled trial in Canada comparing the surgical techniques of BSSVF-M vs. SSLS to address apical prolapse. In total, 358 women with symptomatic POP at five centers will be randomized with 80% power to detect a 15% difference in primary composite outcome and accounting for a 15% loss to follow-up over 2 years. The primary objective is to investigate BSSVF-M vs. SSLS using an established composite of 3 objective signs and 1 subjective symptom of POP measured 2 years postoperatively. Secondary objectives: 1) To determine changes in condition-specific pelvic symptoms, quality of life, pain and condition-specific body image post BSSVF-M vs. SSLS using validated questionnaires; 2) To determine changes in sexuality post BSSVF-M vs. SSLS; 3) To determine global impression of improvement, adverse events (validated classification scheme), reoperations and health utility post BSSVF-M vs. SSLS; 4) To determine the cost-effectiveness of BSSVF-M vs SSLS. Study Registration at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02965313). Discussion: There is a need for innovation to improve the surgical approach to vaginal apical suspension. Despite controversies with mesh, it has been shown to be safe when used appropriately and to have higher durability when compared with sutures. As well, the importance of restoring anatomy and tension-free surgical approach in pelvic reconstructive surgery has led to better long-term outcomes and fewer side effects. These principles have been applied when developing the novel BSSVF-M technique. Anticipated challenges of this trial include recruitment, compliance problems and loss to follow up However, the robust methodology will provide evidence on the best surgical approach to correct POP, a common condition among aging women.
Study on Mesh-Augmented Vaginal Reconstructive Surgery in Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Jin-song Han,Kun Zhang,Fu-li Zhu,Ying Yao,Hua-mao Liang,Li-fei Zhou,Hong-yan Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2011.02.005

2011-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate clinical outcome and complications of mesh-augmented vaginal reconstructive surgery in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.METHODS:From Feb 2007 to Jan 2009, mesh-augmented vaginal reconstructive surgery were performed on 66 women with pelvic organ prolapse stage III-IV. Pre and postoperative symptoms, pelvic organ prolapse quantitation (POP-Q) stage and pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20 (PFDI-20) measurements were studied to assess anatomic and quality-of-life outcome. Operative complications were also analyzed.RESULTS:Totally 65 patients underwent successful surgeries. The rate of follow-up was 97% (63/65) with a median follow-up of 17.2 months. Subjective cure rate and objective cure rate were both 97% (61/63) at 6 and 12 months after surgeries, 51 women completed PFDI-20 measurements and scores were 102 ± 50 before surgery, 16 ± 21 at 6 months and 15 ± 20 at 12 months. It reached statistical difference when scores were compared before and after surgeries (P < 0.05). Among 66 patients, 2 patients underwent organ injuries, 2 had recurrent prolapse, 4 had mesh-related complications and 1 had severe de novo stress urinary incontinence. Six patients underwent second surgery.CONCLUSIONS:Mesh-augmented vaginal reconstructive surgery in treatment of pelvic organ prolapsed brought satisfied clinical outcome. The incidence of mesh-related complications was low and secondary operative interventions were effective.
Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Versus Transvaginal Mesh Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Wang, Xinyan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-023-04003-8

2024-01-09

Indian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:The study aims to compare the objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and transvaginal mesh (TVM) surgery. A retrospective study of 62 women with pelvic organ prolapse stage III and IV among patients who underwent LSC ( N = 30) and TVM ( N = 32). The pelvic floor quality of life questionnaires (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12) and the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) were used to assess the subjective and objective outcomes, respectively. The intraoperative details and long-term surgery complications were assessed as well. The patients were reviewed after the operation for a gynecological examination, treatment, and functional outcomes evaluation. Compared to preoperative POP-Q measurement, except for PB and TVL, the postoperative objective outcomes improved significantly for the two groups ( P < 0.05). The postoperative mean for PB increased significantly in the TVM group than in the LSC group, 2.75 ± 0.49 Vs 2.45 ± 0.68, ( P = 0.04), and the postoperative mean for point C was more improved in LSC than in the TVM group, (− 5.68 ± 2.76 Vs − 5.59 ± 2.07), respectively. The PFDI-20 questionnaire shows that the post-operative subjective outcomes were significantly improved compared to preoperative status in LSC and TVM ( P < 0.05), except CRADI-8 questionnaire for LSC ( P = 0.4). The PFIQ-7 improved significantly in TVM ( P < 0.05), except CRAIQ-7 ( P = 0.5). However, there were no statistically significant in the LSC group ( P > 0.05). Patients who went for the LSC procedure had a longer operation time and greater blood loss than TVM. The TVM surgery offered a higher patient satisfaction for colorectal-anal symptoms than LSC. The patients who underwent LSC had a more extended operating time and greater blood loss, while those who underwent TVM had a higher rate of dyspareunia.

surgery
Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Dongmei Wei,Ping Wang,Xiaoyu Niu,Xia Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13908

Abstract:Aim: To compare total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh (TVM) and laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: Six hundred and seventy patients with POP stage 3 and 4 underwent LSC (n = 350) or TVM (n = 320) at the West China Second Hospital, Sichuan University between January 2011 and December 2016. Retrospective analysis was done to compare the POP-Q value before operation and 6 months, 5 years after operation, also compare the, patient global impression of change (PGI-C), pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7). Patients were followed for a median 36 months. Thirty-five patients in the LSC and 37 in the TVM groups were lost to follow-up. Results: Preoperative POP value and disease course were similar (P = 0.075). The LSC group was younger (52.8 ± 6.8 vs. 63.9 ± 8.7 years, P = 0.037). Intraoperative bleeding was smaller in the LSC group (74.4 ± 33.2 vs. 150.4 ± 80.3 mL, P < 0.01), with longer operation time (130.0 ± 34.1 min vs 100.4 ± 40.4 min, P < 0.035). The patients were followed for 10-60 months (median, 36 months). Postoperative PISQ-12 (P < 0.01) was better in the LSC group. PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 were improved after operation in both groups. Objective satisfaction (94.9% vs 91.9%, P > 0.05) and recurrence rate (8.4% vs 5.1%, P = 0.064) were similar. No infection or fistula occurred after operation in both groups. The complication rate of intraoperative bladder injury and postoperative perineal pain in LSC group was lower than those in the TVM group (P < 0.05). Conclusion: LSC showed no serious adverse events and led to higher postoperative satisfaction than TVM in selected patients. Nevertheless, treatment should be selected in accordance with the willingness and condition of each patient.
Midterm Prospective Comparison of Vaginal Repair with Mesh Vs Prolift System Devices for Prolapse

Yi-Song Chen,Qi Cao,Jing-Xin Ding,Chang-Dong Hu,Wei-Wei Feng,Ke-Qin Hua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.06.015

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To compare midterm clinical outcome using modified pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh (MPFR) vs Prolift devices for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).Study design: This prospective observational cohort study involved 223 women with POP stages III-IV who were assigned to either MPFR (n = 131) or Prolift device (n = 92). Outcomes were analyzed at 6 and 12 months and the last follow-up visit postoperatively. Main outcome measures included pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement, Short Form-20 Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) questionnaires, perioperative outcomes, complications, and a personal interview about urinary and sexual symptoms. Statistical analysis included comparison of means (Wilcoxon test or Student's t-test) and proportions (Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis was carried out using Cox proportional hazard model.Results: At follow-up (median, 36 months: range, 17-58 months), anatomic success for MPFR and Prolift was 87.07% and 93.41%, respectively (P = 0.1339). Both operations significantly improved quality of life, and PFDI-20 scores were lower in the Prolift group than the MPFR group (P = 0.03). Complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups and the prevalence of urinary symptoms decreased postoperatively in both groups. The cost of operation, however, was RMB (sic)11,882.86 yuan for MPFR and (sic)23,617.59 yuan for Prolift (P = 0.00).Conclusions: MPFR and Prolift had comparable anatomic outcomes, Prolift had better functional outcomes than MPFR, but MPFR is much cheaper than Prolift. MPFR is an alternative, cheap and effective surgical treatment option to mesh-kits for the management for POP. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa Mesh for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapsed.

Ting-Ting Cao,Xiu-Li Sun,Shi-Yan Wang,Xin Yang,Jian-Liu Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.192784

IF: 6.133

2016-01-01

Chinese Medical Journal

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major health concern that affects women. Surgeons have increasingly used prosthetic meshes to correct POP. However, the most common used is synthetic mesh, and absorbable mesh is less reported. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS).METHODS:Consecutive forty POP patients who met the inclusion criteria underwent pelvic reconstruction surgery with SIS between March 2012 and December 2013. The patients' clinical characteristics were recorded preoperatively. Surgical outcomes, measured by objective and subjective success rates, were investigated. We evaluated the quality of life (QOL) using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7). Sexual QOL was assessed by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12).RESULTS:At postoperative 12 months, the subjective recurrence rate (7.5%) was much lower than the objective recurrence rate (40.0%). Postoperatively, no erosion was identified. One underwent a graft release procedure because of urinary retention, and one had anus sphincter reconstruction surgery due to defecation urgency. Another experienced posterior vaginal wall infection where the mesh was implanted, accompanied by severe vaginal pain. Estrogen cream relieved the pain. One patient with recurrence underwent a secondary surgery with Bard Mesh because of stage 3 anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Scoring system of PFDI-20 was from 59.150 ± 13.143 preoperatively to 8.400 ± 4.749 postoperatively and PFIQ-7 was from 73.350 ± 32.281 to 7.150 ± 3.110, while PISQ-12 was from 15.825 ± 4.050 to 12.725 ± 3.471.CONCLUSIONS:QOL and the degree of subjective satisfaction were significantly improved postoperatively. Anterior repair deserves more attention because of the higher recurrence rate. The long-term follow-up of the patient is warranted to draw firm conclusion.
Comparison outcomes of three surgical procedures in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse and analysis of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence

Chang-dong HU,Yi-song CHEN,Xiao-fang YI,Jing-xin DING,Wei-wei FENG,Liang-qing YAO,Jian HUANG,Ying ZHANG,Wei-guo HU,Zhi-ling ZHU,Ke-qin HUA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2011.02.004

2011-01-01

Abstract:Objective To investigate clinical significance and application of modified pelvic floor reconstruction developed by Peking Union Medical College Hospital ( MPFR ) in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) by comparing the effectiveness, quality of postoperative sexual life, life satisfaction and risk factors for POP recurrence with the following two surgical procedures: traditional total vaginal hysterectomy with anterior-posterior colporrhaphy (TVH-APC) and total vaginal hysterectomy with lateral colporrhaphy and sacrospinous ligament fixation and vaginal bridge repair and episiotomy (TVH-LC-SSLFVBR-EP). Methods Totally 173 patients with severe POP and at least two compartments defects of pelvic floor underwent surgeries in the study, 86 patients (group A) were treated by MPFR with polypropylene mesh application, 58 (group B) were treated by TVH-APC, and 29 patients (group C) were treated by TVH-LC-SSLF-VBR-EP. Peri-operative data and outcomes of postoperative courses at 6, 12, 18 months were collected and analyzed, in the meantime, the risk factors of recurrence were studied. Results (1) No statistical difference was observed among the above 3 groups in terms of length of operation, amount of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and morbidity after surgery ( P ＞ 0.05). ( 2 ) Cost hospitalization was ( 11 448 ±3049) Yuan in group A, which was significantly higher than (7262 ± 1607) Yuan in group B and (7140 ± 1817 ) Yuan in group C (P ＜ 0.05 ). (3) The length of vaginal cuff of (7.5 ± 1.4) cm in group A and ( 5.6 ± 1.1 ) cm in group C were significantly longer than (7.1±0.6) cm in group B ( P＜0.05). The width of vaginal cuff of (4.3±0.3) cm in group A was larger than (3.4±0.3) cm in group B and (3.3±0.4) cm in group C (P＜0.05). (4) The recurrence rate at 12 months after surgery was 12.8% (11/86)in group A, which was similar with 17.2%(5/29) in group C (P＞0.05) and significantly less than 36.2% (21/58) in group B (P＜0.05). The rate of active sexual life of 16.3% (14/86) in group A was significantly higher than 1.7% (1/58) in group B and 0 in group C ( P ＜ 0. 05 ). The index of life quality improvement at 12 months after surgery was 48±12 in group A, which was no less than 53±16 in group C ( P＞0.05) and higher than 27 ± 9 in group B ( P＜0.05). (5 ) Mesh rejection was observed in 6 patients in group A within 3 months after surgery, while the posterior vaginal wall was exclusively involved. No difference was found in urinary retention or urinary incontinence among three groups (P ＞0. 05 ). (6) The severe degree of POP, type of surgical procedure ( TVT-APC), anterior compartment defect of pelvic floor,and early days of performing pelvic floor reconstruction surgeries were high risk factors for POP recurrence (P＜ 0.05). Conclusions MPFR has a better curative effect and lower recurrence rate on patients with POP. It can help patients regain integrity of anatomical structure and functions of pelvic floor. TVH-LCSSLF-VBR-EP is also effective.
A randomized trial of retropubic versus single-incision sling amongst patients undergoing vaginal prolapse repair

Catherine A. Matthews,Charles R. Rardin,Andrew Sokol,Cheryl Iglesia,Sarah Collins,Cecile Ferrando,Harvey Winkler,Kimberly Kenton,Julia Geynisman-Tan,Robert E. Gutman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.04.036

IF: 9.8

2024-05-06

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:BACKGROUND Choice of midurethral sling type may impact efficacy and complications in women undergoing transvaginal native tissue repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). OBJECTIVE The primary aim was to determine if single-incision (SI) sling is noninferior to retropubic (RP) sling for management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) amongst patients undergoing reconstructive or obliterative native tissue vaginal repair. The secondary aims were to compare adverse events and surgeon ease of use with sling assignment. STUDY DESIGN A multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial of women with ≥ Stage II POP and objectively confirmed SUI undergoing reconstructive or obliterative vaginal repair was performed. Women were randomized to concomitant SI (Altis sling, Coloplast Minneapolis, MN) with suprapubic sham incisions or RP sling. The primary, dichotomous outcome was abnormal lower urinary tract function within 12 months post-surgery, defined as: bothersome SUI symptoms (>1 PFDI question #17); retreatment for SUI; or treatment for urinary retention. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, patient global impression of improvement of bladder function (PGI-I) and surgeon ease of use (1 worst, 10 best). All subjects completed validated questionnaires and underwent a POP-Q, cough stress test and post void residual (PVR) pre-operatively, at 6 weeks and 12 months post operatively. Assuming a subjective cure rate for RP of 82%, 80% power and one-sided 5% significance level, we estimated that 127 patients in each arm were needed to declare noninferiority of the SI sling if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference per protocol in abnormal bladder function was less than 12%. Assuming a 10% loss to follow-up, the total enrollment goal was 280. RESULTS Between 12/2018 and 1/2023, 280 subjects were enrolled across 7 sites and 255 were randomized: 126 to SI and 129 to RP sling. There were no pre-operative or operative characteristic differences between groups. Overall, 81% had reconstructive and 19% had obliterative native tissue repairs. The primary outcome, abnormal lower urinary tract function at 12 months, occurred in 29 (25%) of SI vs. 24 (20%) of RP sling group (Risk difference 0.04472, 95% CI (-0.03-0.1133), p = 0.001 for noninferiority). Bothersome SUI occurred in 20% vs. 17% (p=0.27) and was re-treated in 4% vs. 2% (p=0.44) of SI vs. RP groups, respectively. Adverse events were reported in 24 (16%) of SI vs. 14 (9%) of RP group (95% CI, 0.95-3.29; p=0.7) and included de novo or worsening urgency incontinence symptoms, urinary tract infection, mesh exposure, need for prolonged catheter drainage, and de novo pain, without differences between groups. PGI-I (very satisfied & satisfied) was 71% vs. 67% (p=0.43) and median surgeon ease of sling use was 8 [7-10] vs. 9 [8-10], p=0.03 in SI vs. RP, respectively. CONCLUSION For women undergoing vaginal repair, SI was noninferior to RP sling for SUI symptoms and complications, including treatment for urinary retention, did not differ.

obstetrics & gynecology
[Analysis of Mesh Related Complications after Trans-Vaginal Mesh-Augmented Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery].

Kun Zhang,Jin-song Han,Fu-li Zhu,Ying Yao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567x.2012.09.007

2012-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the complications after trans-vaginal mesh-augmented pelvic floor reconstruction in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).METHODS:From February 2007 to October 2009, vaginal mesh procedures were performed on 91 women with POP stage III-IV in Peking University Third Hospital. The operative complications were studied.RESULTS:Ninety patients underwent successful surgery among 91 patients. Follow-up rate was 94% (85/90) at a median follow-up of 28.4 (15 - 44) months. One patient underwent intraoperative organ injuries, and 10 patients had postoperation mesh-related complications. The rate of mesh-related complications was 2% (2/85), 2% (2/85), 4% (3/85), 4% (3/85) on 6, 6 - 12, 12 - 24 and more than 24 months following up, respectively. Seven patients underwent conservative treatment and the symptoms were improved. Three patients underwent the second surgery, and the symptoms were cured or relieved.CONCLUSION:The incidence of mesh-related complications was low, and interventions were effective in vaginal mesh procedure.

[Biopharmaceuticals and biosimilars in oncology: where are we?].

Long-term treatment outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery versus anterior-posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Long‐term Treatment Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Anterior–posterior Colporrhaphy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

Long-term Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Effectiveness of Self-cut vs Mesh-Kit Titanium-Coated Polypropylene Mesh for Transvaginal Treatment of Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Multicenter Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial

Transvaginal polytetrafluoroethylene mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: one-year safety and efficacy results

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Vs Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: 1 Year Results of a Multicenter Randomized Study

The Clinical Efficacy Of Biologic Mesh And Synthetic Mesh For Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery

Native tissue repair versus mesh repair in pelvic organ prolapse surgery

1473 Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Sis Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Small Intestine Submucosa Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

COMET (Composite Outcomes of Mesh vs suture Techniques for prolapse repair)- Protocol for a single blind randomized controlled multicenter trial testing surgical innovation in female pelvic surgery

Study on Mesh-Augmented Vaginal Reconstructive Surgery in Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Versus Transvaginal Mesh Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Midterm Prospective Comparison of Vaginal Repair with Mesh Vs Prolift System Devices for Prolapse

Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa Mesh for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapsed.

Comparison outcomes of three surgical procedures in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse and analysis of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence

A randomized trial of retropubic versus single-incision sling amongst patients undergoing vaginal prolapse repair

[Analysis of Mesh Related Complications after Trans-Vaginal Mesh-Augmented Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery].