BACKGROUND: 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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.
SEARCH METHODS: 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).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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.
MAIN RESULTS: 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 2001 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.28; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1374 women; moderate-certainty evidence), repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 899 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.29; I2 = 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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of total repeat surgery (for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure), bladder injury, and de novo stress urinary incontinence. While the direction of effects and effect sizes are relatively unchanged from the 2016 version of this review, the certainty and precision of the findings have all improved with a larger sample size. In addition, the clinical relevance of these data has improved, with 10 trials reporting 3- to 10-year outcomes. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. Data on the management of recurrent prolapse are of limited quality. Given the risk-benefit profile, we recommend that any use of permanent transvaginal mesh should be conducted under the oversight of the local ethics committee in compliance with local regulatory recommendations. Data are not supportive of absorbable meshes or biological grafts for the management of transvaginal prolapse.
BACKGROUND: This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.
BACKGROUND: Anterior vaginal repair (anterior colporrhaphy) is an operation traditionally used for moderate or severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women. About a third of adult women experience urinary incontinence. SUI imposes significant health and economic burden to the society and the women affected.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of anterior vaginal repair (anterior colporrhaphy) on urinary incontinence in comparison with other management options.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 1 September 2009) and the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included anterior vaginal repair for the treatment of urinary incontinence.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Three trial investigators were contacted for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials were identified which included 385 women having an anterior vaginal repair and 627 who received comparison interventions.A single small trial provided insufficient evidence to assess anterior vaginal repair in comparison with physical therapy. The performance of anterior repair in comparison with bladder neck needle suspension appeared similar (risk ratio (RR) for failure after one year 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.56), but clinically important differences could not be confidently ruled out. No trials compared anterior repair with suburethral sling operations or laparoscopic colposuspensions, or compared alternative vaginal operations.Anterior vaginal repair was less effective than open abdominal retropubic suspension based on patient-reported cure rates in eight trials both in the medium term (failure rate within one to five years after anterior repair 97/259 (38%) versus 57/327 (17%); RR 2.29, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 1.70 to 3.08) and in the long term (after five years, (49/128 (38%) versus 31/145 (21%); RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.36 to 3.01). There was evidence from three of these trials that this was reflected in a need for more repeat operations for incontinence (25/107 (23%) versus 4/164 (2%); RR 8.87, 95% CI 3.28 to 23.94). These findings held, irrespective of the co-existence of prolapse (pelvic relaxation). Although fewer women had a prolapse after anterior repair (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.47), later prolapse operation appeared to be equally common after vaginal (3%) or abdominal (4%) operation.In respect of the type of open abdominal retropubic suspension, most data related to comparisons of anterior vaginal repair with Burch colposuspension. The few data describing comparison of anterior repair with the Marshall-Marchetti-Krantz procedure were consistent with those for Burch colposuspension.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were not enough data to allow comparison of anterior vaginal repair with physical therapy or needle suspension for primary urinary stress incontinence in women. Open abdominal retropubic suspension appeared to be better than anterior vaginal repair judged on subjective cure rates in eight trials, even in women who had prolapse in addition to stress incontinence (six trials). The need for repeat incontinence surgery was also less after the abdominal operation. However, there was not enough information about postoperative complications and morbidity.A Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified one study suggesting that vaginoplasty may be more cost-effective compared with tension-free vaginal tape (TVT-O).
BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is a common and potentially debilitating problem. Stress urinary, incontinence as the most common type of incontinence, imposes significant health and economic burdens on society and the women affected. Open retropubic colposuspension is a surgical treatment which involves lifting the tissues near the bladder neck and proximal urethra in the area behind the anterior pubic bones to correct deficient urethral closure to correct stress urinary incontinence.
OBJECTIVES: The review aimed to determine the effects of open retropubic colposuspension for the treatment of urinary incontinence in women. A secondary aim was to assess the safety of open retropubic colposuspension in terms of adverse events caused by the procedure.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 5 May 2015), and the reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted investigators to locate extra studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with symptoms or urodynamic diagnoses of stress or mixed urinary incontinence that included open retropubic colposuspension surgery in at least one trial group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were evaluated for methodological quality or susceptibility to bias and appropriateness for inclusion and data extracted by two of the review authors. Trial data were analysed by intervention. Where appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated.
MAIN RESULTS: This review included 55 trials involving a total of 5417 women.Overall cure rates were 68.9% to 88.0% for open retropubic colposuspension. Two small studies suggested lower incontinence rates after open retropubic colposuspension compared with conservative treatment. Similarly, one trial suggested lower incontinence rates after open retropubic colposuspension compared to anticholinergic treatment. Evidence from six trials showed a lower incontinence rate after open retropubic colposuspension than after anterior colporrhaphy. Such benefit was maintained over time (risk ratio (RR) for incontinence 0.46; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.72 before the first year, RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.51 at one to five years, RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.75 in periods beyond five years).Evidence from 22 trials in comparison with suburethral slings (traditional slings or trans-vaginal tape or transobturator tape) found no overall significant difference in incontinence rates in all time periods evaluated (as assessed subjectively RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, within one year of treatment, RR 1.18; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.39 between one and five years, RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27 at five years and more, and as assessed objectively RR 1.24; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.67 within one year of treatment, RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.54 for one to five years follow up, RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.64 at more than five years). However, subgroup analysis of studies comparing traditional slings and open colposuspension showed better effectiveness with traditional slings in the medium and long term (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64 from one to five years follow up, RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.37).In comparison with needle suspension, there was a lower incontinence rate after colposuspension in the first year after surgery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03), after the first year (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81), and beyond five years (RR 0.32; 95% CI 15 to 0.71).Patient-reported incontinence rates at short, medium and long-term follow-up showed no significant differences between open and laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension, but with wide confidence intervals. In two trials incontinence was less common after the Burch (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76) than after the Marshall Marchetti Krantz procedure at one to five year follow-up. There were few data at any other follow-up times.In general, the evidence available does not show a higher morbidity or complication rate with open retropubic colposuspension compared to the other open surgical techniques, although pelvic organ prolapse is more common than after anterior colporrhaphy and sling procedures. Voiding problems are also more common after sling procedures compared to open colposuspension.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Open retropubic colposuspension is an effective treatment modality for stress urinary incontinence especially in the long term. Within the first year of treatment, the overall continence rate is approximately 85% to 90%. After five years, approximately 70% of women can expect to be dry. Newer minimal access sling procedures look promising in comparison with open colposuspension but their long-term performance is limited and closer monitoring of their adverse event profile must be carried out. Open colposuspension is associated with a higher risk of pelvic organ prolapse compared to sling operations and anterior colporrhaphy, but with a lower risk of voiding dysfunction compared to traditional sling surgery. Laparoscopic colposuspension should allow speedier recovery but its relative safety and long-term effectiveness is not yet known. A Brief Economic Commentary (BEC) identified five studies suggesting that tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) and laparoscopic colposuspension may be more cost-effective compared with open retropubic colposuspension.
This systematic review was performed to investigate the ethical justification, methodological quality, validity and safety of placebo controls in randomized placebo-controlled surgical trials.Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing a surgical procedure to a placebo. "Surgical procedure" was defined as a medical procedure involving an incision with instruments. Placebo was defined as a blinded sham operation involving no change to the structural anatomy and without an expectable physiological response in the target body compartment.Ten randomized placebo-controlled controlled surgical trials were included, all of them published in high-ranking medical journals (mean impact factor: 20.1). Eight of 10 failed to show statistical superiority of the experimental intervention. Serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.06, P = 0.46). None of the trials had a high risk of bias in any domain. The ethical justification for the use of a placebo control remained unclear in 2 trials.Placebo-controlled surgical trials are feasible and provide high-quality data on efficacy of surgical treatments. The surgical placebo entails a considerable risk for study participants. Consequently, a placebo should be used only if justified by the clinical question and by methodological necessity. Based on the current evidence, a pragmatic proposal for the use of placebo controls in future randomized controlled surgical trials is made.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse shows an increasing prevalence (3-50 %). The gold standard treatment for apical prolapse is sacrocolpopexy, which can be performed via minimal access (conventional laparoscopy or robotic surgery) or open sacrocolpopexy. The objective is to appraise the effectiveness and safety of robotic surgery compared with laparoscopic sacropexy in the treatment of apical prolapse.
METHODS: Keywords were searched in: CINAHL, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Cochrane MDSG Trials Register, Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Trials Registry Platform search portal, LILACS, and Google Scholar. A hand-search was also performed from IUJ and JMIG. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials evaluating all women who underwent robotic sacropexy (RSC) or laparoscopic sacropexy (LSC) were included. A data extraction tool was used for data collection. RSC was compared with LSC. Narrative analysis and meta-analysis (RevMan) were conducted where appropriate.
RESULTS: Nine papers compared RSC with LSC, involving 1,157 subjects. No significant difference was found between approaches for anatomical outcomes, mortality, hospital stay (MD: -0.72/95 % CI 1.72, 0.28], p = 0.16), and postoperative quality of life. However, robotic sacropexy had more postoperative pain and longer operating times, although fewer overall complications when performed concomitantly with hysterectomy (OR 0.35; 95 % CI 0.19-0.64).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic sacropexy was related to more postoperative pain and longer operating times. However, no significant differences were found regarding anatomical outcomes, mortality, hospital stay or postoperative quality of life. Cautious interpretation of results is advised because of the risk of bias caused by the inclusion of non-randomised studies. More research comparing RSC with LSC is mandatory, particularly draw conclusions regarding estimated blood loss and complication rate.
PURPOSE: To evaluate available evidence on robot-assisted surgery compared with open and laparoscopic surgery.
METHOD: The databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing robot-assisted surgery with open and laparoscopic surgery regardless of surgical procedure. Meta-analyses were performed on each outcome with appropriate data material available. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate risk of bias on a study level. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence of the meta-analyses.
RESULTS: This review included 20 studies comprising 981 patients. The meta-analyses found no significant differences between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery regarding blood loss, complication rates, and hospital stay. A significantly longer operative time was found for robot-assisted surgery. Open versus robot-assisted surgery was investigated in 3 studies. A lower blood loss and a longer operative time were found after robot-assisted surgery. No other difference was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: At this point there is not enough evidence to support the significantly higher costs with the implementation of robot-assisted surgery.
The use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has gained popularity in the field of gynaecology, including pelvic floor surgery. To assess the benefits of RAS, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. The Cochrane Library (1970–January 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), and EMBASE (1974 to January 2015) were searched, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We identified two randomized trials (n = 78) comparing laparoscopic with robotic sacrocolpopexy. The Paraiso 2011 study showed that laparoscopic was faster than robotic sacrocolpopexy (199 ± 46 vs. 265 ± 50 min; p <.001), yet in the ACCESS trial, no difference was present (225 ± 62.3 vs. 246.5 ± 51.3 min; p =.110). Costs for using the robot were significantly higher in both studies, however, in the ACCESS trial, only when purchase and maintenance of the robot was included (LSC US$11,573 ± 3191 vs. RASC US$19,616 ± 3135; p <.001). In the Paraiso study, RASC was more expensive even without considering those costs (LSC US$ 14,342 ± 2941 vs. RASC 16,278 ± 3326; p = 0.008). Pain was reportedly higher after RASC, although at different time points after the operation. There were no differences in anatomical outcomes, pelvic floor function, and quality of life. The experience with RASC was tenfold lower than that with LSC in both studies. The heterogeneity between the two studies precluded a meta-analysis. Based on small randomized studies, with surgeons less experienced in RAS than in laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery significantly increases the cost of a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. RASC would be more sustainable if its costs would be lower. Though RASC may have other benefits, such as reduction of the learning curve and increased ergonomics or dexterity, these remain to be demonstrated.
CONTEXT: Surgery represents the mainstay of treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Among different surgical procedures, abdominal sacrocolpopexy (SC) is the gold standard for apical or multicompartmental POP. Research has recently focused on the role of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC).
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review on the outcomes of RASC.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases as well as ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for English-language literature on RASC. A total of 509 articles were screened; 50 (10%) were selected, and 27 (5%) were included. Studies were evaluated per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system and the European Association of Urology guidelines.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, data on 1488 RASCs were collected from 27 studies, published from 2006 to 2013. Objective and subjective cures ranged from 84% to 100% and from 92% to 95%, respectively. Conversion rate to open surgery was <1% (range: 0-5%). Intraoperative, severe postoperative complications, and mesh erosion rates were 3% (range: 0-19%), 2% (range: 0-8%), and 2% (range: 0-8%), respectively. Surgical-related outcomes have improved with increased experience, with an estimated learning curve of about 10-20 procedures. Laparoscopic SC is less costly than RASC, although the latter has lower costs than abdominal SC.
CONCLUSIONS: RASC is a safe and feasible procedure for POP; it allows the execution of complex surgical steps via minimally invasive surgery without medium- and long-term anatomic detriments. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy for prolapse. We found that the use of robotic technology is safe and effective for the treatment of prolapse in women.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: One of the main outcomes in the assessment of the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in women is quality of life. Using quality of life as an outcome measure is increasing in the majority of clinical trials. The aim of current study was to determine the effects of the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse on patients' quality of life using systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: A systematic search for finding randomized controlled studies on pelvic organ prolapse published before October 2012 was conducted. The JAMA users' guide to the medical literature quality assessment scales for randomized clinical trials was used to assess the quality of included articles. The mean difference in total quality of life score between before and after intervention (surgical or pelvic floor training) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was considered as a primary summary measure. Egger's test was used to evaluate the publication bias. Heterogeneity was assessed using I(2) Index.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven RCT were critically appraised. Thirty-two articles were eligible after critical evaluation. Mean difference in change in the total quality of life score with 95 % CI for surgical treatment was 74.03 (66.3-81.6) by PFDI-20 and was 44.57 (22.53-66.65) by PFIQ-7. The mean difference in changed in the total quality of life score with 95 % CI was 1.32 (-2.8-5.4) for pelvic floor training (PFT).
CONCLUSION: We found that surgical interventions on prolapse can improve the quality of life of women. There was a relative effect of PFT on the quality of life of women with prolapse in systematic review. This effect was not seen in meta-analysis, probably because of finding few eligible studies to pool the effect size.
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.
OBJECTIVES:
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.
SEARCH METHODS:
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).
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
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.
MAIN RESULTS:
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; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 2001 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.28; I2 = 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; I2 = 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; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1374 women; moderate-certainty evidence), repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 899 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.29; I2 = 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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of total repeat surgery (for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure), bladder injury, and de novo stress urinary incontinence. While the direction of effects and effect sizes are relatively unchanged from the 2016 version of this review, the certainty and precision of the findings have all improved with a larger sample size. In addition, the clinical relevance of these data has improved, with 10 trials reporting 3- to 10-year outcomes. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. Data on the management of recurrent prolapse are of limited quality. Given the risk-benefit profile, we recommend that any use of permanent transvaginal mesh should be conducted under the oversight of the local ethics committee in compliance with local regulatory recommendations. Data are not supportive of absorbable meshes or biological grafts for the management of transvaginal prolapse.
