Urology
Volume 79, Issue 1 , Pages 12-14, January 2012

Evidence-based Medicine for Polypropylene Mesh Use Compared With Native Tissue Vaginal Prolapse Repair

  • Donald R. Ostergard

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Donald R. Ostergard, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Division of Urogynecology, 550 S. Jackson Street, Second Floor, Louisville, KY 40202

University of Louisville, School of Medicine, Louisville, KY

Received 14 June 2011; accepted 22 July 2011. published online 25 November 2011.

A review of the current medical literature for the use of polypropylene (PP) mesh for vaginally performed prolapse repair, including only those studies reporting prospective, randomized, controlled trials compared with native tissue repairs was undertaken. Five full manuscript publications and 4 studies still in abstract form were all consistent with PP mesh producing better anatomical results for cystocele repair, but when functional results in terms of the patient's quality of life are considered, no significant difference is found between PP mesh and native tissue repairs. PP mesh use results in better anatomical results in the short term but at a cost of repeated surgeries because of erosions and other complications. Patients do not recognize any added benefit from the use of these prostheses in their daily lives.

 

PII: S0090-4295(11)02436-8

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.07.1438

Urology
Volume 79, Issue 1 , Pages 12-14, January 2012