Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014 Feb;123(2 Pt 1):288-294.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000105.

Absorbable mesh augmentation compared with no mesh for anterior prolapse: a randomized controlled trial

Magali Robert  1 , Isabelle Girard, Erin Brennand, Selphee Tang, Colin Birch, Magnus Murphy, Sue Ross
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Absorbable mesh augmentation compared with no mesh for anterior prolapse: a randomized controlled trial

Magali Robert et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: To compare anatomical and patient-reported outcomes at 12 months postoperatively for women who had anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery using a repair augmented with porcine small intestine submucosa mesh (Mesh Group) compared with those who had a native tissue repair (No Mesh Group).

Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial with 12 months follow-up. The surgical procedure was identical in both groups except for the placement of intervening mesh. The primary outcome was anatomical "cure" (Ba of -1 or less on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification [POP-Q]). Secondary outcomes included POP-Q stage, patient-reported outcomes, and patient satisfaction. The study was powered to detect a 40% difference at 80% power (α=0.05).

Results: Fifty-seven women were randomized (28 to Mesh Group, 29 to No Mesh Group). Forty-five (79%) underwent concomitant surgery. At the 12-month follow-up, 56% (15/27) in the Mesh Group and 61% (17/28) in the No Mesh Group were considered cured (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.52-1.54). There were no significant differences between groups in recurrent or persistent prolapse (7% in each group) nor in patient-reported outcomes at 12 months. Pelvic girdle pain occurred in 4 of 27 in the Mesh Group and 3 of 28 in the No Mesh Group.

Conclusion: No significant differences were observed in anatomical or patient-reported outcomes outcome parameters at 12 months after correction of symptomatic anterior POP by mesh or no mesh repair. In our study, porcine small intestine submucosa mesh did not confer additional benefit over a native tissue repair.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT0095544. LEVEL OF EVEDIENCE: I.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00955448.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 2007;369:1027–38.
    1. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women's Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1160–6.
    1. Lee U, Wolff EM, Kobashi KC. Native tissue repairs in anterior vaginal prolapse surgery: examining definitions of surgical success in the mesh era. Curr Opin Urol 2012;22:265–70.
    1. Hodde J. Extracellular matrix as a bioactive material for soft tissue reconstruction. ANZ J Surg 2006;76:1096–100.
    1. Clarke KM, Lantz GC, Salisbury KS, Badylak SF, Hiles MC, Voytik SL. Intestine submucosa and polypropylene mesh for abdominal wall repair in dogs. J Surg Res 1996;60:107–14.

Publication types

Associated data