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-

Vaginal morphology and position associated with prolapse recurrence after vaginal surgery: A secondary analysis of the DEMAND study

Posterior Vaginal Prolapse Shape and Position Changes at Maximal Valsalva Seen in 3-D MRI-based Models

Structural failure sites in posterior vaginal wall prolapse: stress 3D MRI-based analysis

Age-stratified Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Postpartum Changes in Levator Plate Shape and Genital Hiatus Size After Vaginal Delivery

Transperineal Pelvic Floor Ultrasound for Analyzing the Outcomes of Pelvic Floor Surgery for the Treatment of Anterior Compartment Prolapse: A Comparative Study of Transvaginal Mesh and Native-Tissue Repair

Association Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings of the Pelvic Floor and De Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence after Vaginal Delivery

Laparoscopic repair of vaginal vault prolapse by lateral suspension with mesh

Recurrent pelvic prolapse after pelvic organ prolapse suspension (POPS): Analysis and treatment of an emerging clinical issue

Long-Term Observation on Postoperative Recurrence and Complications of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

3D Analysis of Cystoceles Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessing Midline, Paravaginal, and Apical Defects

Clinical Analysis of the Relapse and Its Related Factors in Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Three-year outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of perioperative vaginal estrogen as adjunct to native tissue vaginal apical prolapse repair

Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence following colpocleisis: A meta-analysis

The vaginal microcirculation after prolapse surgery

Post-operative outcomes associated with anterior mesh location after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

Mesh Exposure and Prolapse Recurrence Following Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery for Sacrocolpopexy: Over 24 months of Follow-Up Data

Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

Outcomes of Abdominal Apical Suspension Using Mesh in a Tertiary Training Hospital: A Seven-year Retrospective Review

Durable Approaches to Recurrent Rectal Prolapse Repair May Require Avoidance of Index Procedure

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