Transvaginal mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Issue 4 (26th February 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jiang, Guojing; Yan, Bin; Wang, Yu; Ma, Qingliang
• Is Part Of: Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research. Volume 40:Issue 4(2014:Apr.)
• Page Start: 1046
• Page End: 1050
• Publication Date: 2014-02-26
• Subjects: Gynecology -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; 618.1005
• DOI: 10.1111/jog.12279
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1341-8076

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="jog12279-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Aim</title> <p>We compared outcomes for traditional vaginal surgery with uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) versus transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).</p> </sec> <sec id="jog12279-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>We performed a retrospective chart review of pelvic organ prolapse cases that occurred between February 2007 and December 2011. Success rates for traditional vaginal repair plus USLS and transvaginal mesh repair were determined.</p> </sec> <sec id="jog12279-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>As compared with traditional surgery (<italic>n</italic> = 81), using mesh (<italic>n</italic> = 90) for stage III or IV prolapse resulted in higher rates of successful treatment. However, mesh repair also resulted in increased intraoperative blood loss and postoperative adverse events, such as pain and dyspareunia.</p> </sec> <sec id="jog12279-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>Traditional vaginal repair plus USLS was an improvement on traditional surgery, resulting in a higher anatomical success rate. On the other hand, both intraoperative and postoperative complications in mesh repair could be reduced by protective factors such as the surgeon's experience.</p> </sec> </abstract>