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
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Nov:165:104-112.
doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.07.013. Epub 2022 Aug 3.

Native tissue repair (NTR) versus transvaginal mesh interventions for the treatment of anterior vaginal prolapse: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Native tissue repair (NTR) versus transvaginal mesh interventions for the treatment of anterior vaginal prolapse: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Giampiero Capobianco et al. Maturitas. 2022 Nov.

Abstract

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare native tissue repair (NTR) against transvaginal mesh augmentation for the repair of anterior vaginal prolapse. A total of 2289 articles were found but only 27 (24.8 %) were included in the review. Guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were followed to guide the process of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The quality of the observational studies was evaluated according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, whereas the quality of randomized control trials (RCT) was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias scale. The mesh repair intervention was associated with a higher anatomical cure rate in comparison with NTR repair when the follow-up was ≤24 months [pooled risk difference (95 % CI): -0.18 % (-0.22 %; 0.13 %); p-value: <0.0001; I2: 36.0 %]. Studies reporting anatomical failure had similar findings [pooled risk difference (95 % CI): 0.17 % (0.01 %; 0.33 %); p-value: 0.03; I2: 88.6 %]. No differences in the risk of re-operation were observed between NTR repair and mesh augmentation. Pooled risk differences in the incidence of post-surgical and late complications were higher for the mesh repair intervention [-0.05 % (95 % CI: -0.10 %; 0.00 %) p-value: 0.05; I2: 68.3 %] [-0.05 % (95 % CI: -0.14 %; 0.03 %) p-value: 0.25; I2: 82.0 %]. Women who underwent mesh repair reported greater satisfaction than women who underwent NTR [pooled risk difference (95 % CI): -0.07 % (-0.16 %; 0.02 %); p-value: 0.15; I2: 65.3 %]. In conclusion, mesh repair surgery had higher anatomical cure and satisfaction rates, with no differences in re-operation rate, but had higher post-surgical and late complications in comparison with NTR.

Keywords: Anterior vaginal prolapse; Cystocele; Mesh augmentation; Native tissue repair (NTR); Transvaginal mesh repair.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

LinkOut - more resources