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-

Outcomes of synthetic and biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: A propensity-matched analysis in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention class 1 and 2 wounds

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

Slowly absorbable mesh in sublay ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields

Elective complex ventral hernia repair in contaminated fields: A propensity score-matched analysis of long-term quality of life and outcomes between different prostheses

Biological mesh is a safe and effective method of abdominal wall reconstruction in cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal malignancy

Acellular Dermal Matrix Provides Durable Long-Term Outcomes in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the management of ventral hernia: biologic versus synthetic mesh

A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing short- and medium-term outcomes of novel biologics and lightweight synthetic mesh for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

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

Systematic review of the stage of innovation of biological mesh for complex or contaminated abdominal wall closure

Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

Short–term outcomes of heavyweight versus mediumweight synthetic mesh in a retrospective cohort of clean–contaminated and contaminated retromuscular ventral hernia repairs

Long-term outcomes of PGA-TMC absorbable synthetic scaffold in both clean and contaminated ventral hernia repairs

Mesh exposure after ventral hernia repair with onlay biosynthetic mesh: a retrospective review of associated risk factors and management strategies

Long-term clinical effect of artificial mesh application in the repair of abdominal malignant tumor in vivo

Effect of surgical wound classification on biologic graft performance in complex hernia repair: An experimental study

Wound healing and hernia after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair – Onlay self-gripping polyester mesh reinforcement compared with small bite sutured closure

Posterior mesh inguinal hernia repairs: a propensity score matched analysis of laparoscopic and robotic versus open approaches

Outcomes and Quality of Life After Resorbable Synthetic Ventral Hernia Repair in Contaminated Fields

Biomechanical Influences on Mesh-Related Complications in Incisional Hernia Repair

Remodeling and Regenerative Properties of Fully Absorbable Meshes for Abdominal Wall Defect Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies