2011
DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382011000500028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Background: The use of standardized mesh kits for repair of pelvic-organ prolapse has spread rapidly in recent years, but it is unclear whether this approach results in better outcomes than traditional colporrhaphy. Methods: In this multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial, we compared the use of a trocarguided, transvaginal polypropylene-mesh repair kit with traditional colporrhaphy in women with prolapse of the anterior vaginal wall (cystocele). The primary outcome was a composite of the obj… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

15
104
4
13

Year Published

2011
2011
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 87 publications
(136 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
(1 reference statement)
15
104
4
13
Order By: Relevance
“…When these results are compared to those from other multi-center studies, using the strict criteria of anatomic success (POP-Q stage 0-I), these medium-term results (69%) do appear to be lower than the 1 year results reported by Withagen et al (90%) and Altman et al (82%) [6,8]. However, as the duration of follow-up in these studies are significantly shorter than those of our study, direct comparison of results is not possible, and thus the difference in anatomic success between the studies should be interpreted with caution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…When these results are compared to those from other multi-center studies, using the strict criteria of anatomic success (POP-Q stage 0-I), these medium-term results (69%) do appear to be lower than the 1 year results reported by Withagen et al (90%) and Altman et al (82%) [6,8]. However, as the duration of follow-up in these studies are significantly shorter than those of our study, direct comparison of results is not possible, and thus the difference in anatomic success between the studies should be interpreted with caution.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…Further to this, the sustained symptom improvements observed over time following this repair is consistent with the suggestion that some degree of vaginal relaxation or pliability is desirable for normal pelvic floor functioning. Another consideration was the reduce rate of de novo stress urinary incontinence following this repair (5%), compared to those reported from the studies of Withagen et al (10%) and Altman et al (12%) [6,8]. A properly controlled and adequately powered study would need to address the overall risk-benefit profile between different mesh kits.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes in traditional colporrhaphy and a trocar-guided transvaginal polypropylene mesh kit in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse has recently been published [15]. Three hundred and eighty-nine women participated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bei vernünftiger Indikation und entsprechender operativer Erfahrung bieten die Netze objektiv und auch subjektiv dauerhaft gute Langzeitergebnisse [3] und zeigen randomisiert gegen die klassische vordere Kolporrhaphie bessere Langzeitergebnisse, wenngleich die Kurz-und Langzeitkomplikationsraten der Kunststoffimplantate höher lag [4]. Die oft sehr unkritische Verwendung dieser Netze und von der Industrie getriebene weite Verbreitung, auch bei nicht sehr erfahrenen Operateuren, führte zumindest in den USA 2008 zur Empfehlung seitens der FDA, dass diese Netze aufgrund hoher Komplikationsraten nur bei Rezidiveingriffen indiziert seien.…”
unclassified