Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more of the pelvic organs (uterus, vaginal apex, bladder, or bowel) into the vagina. In recent years, surgeons have increasingly used grafts in transvaginal repairs. Graft material can be synthetic or biological. The aim is to reduce prolapse recurrence and surpass the effectiveness of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse. This is a review update; the previous version was published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair or other grafts in the surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and two clinical trials registers (March 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 RCTs (7846 women). The certainty of the evidence was largely moderate (ranging from very low to moderate). Transvaginal permanent mesh versus native tissue repair Awareness of prolapse at six months to seven years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.95; I2 = 34%; 17 studies, 2932 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 23% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 17% and 22% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair. Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95; I2 = 35%; 17 studies, 2485 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for incontinence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.59; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 2206 women; moderate-certainty evidence). However, more women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.26; I2 = 54%; 27 studies, 3916 women; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 7.1% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7.6% and 16% will require repeat surgery after permanent mesh repair. The rate of mesh exposure was 11.8% and surgery for mesh exposure was 6.1% in women who had mesh repairs. Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; I2 = 84%; 25 studies, 3680 women; very low-certainty evidence). Permanent transvaginal mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 2001 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.28; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1997 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.79; I2 = 27%; 16 studies, 1308 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life outcomes; however, there was substantial heterogeneity in the data. Transvaginal absorbable mesh versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the two methods of repair at two years for the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44; 1 study, 54 women), rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40; 1 study, 66 women), or recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.70; 1 study, 66 women). The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for bladder-related outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Transvaginal biological graft versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1374 women; moderate-certainty evidence), repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 899 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.29; I2 = 53%; 9 studies, 1278 women; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life. Transvaginal permanent mesh versus any other permanent mesh or biological graft vaginal repair Sparse reporting of primary outcomes in both comparisons significantly limited any meaningful analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of total repeat surgery (for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure), bladder injury, and de novo stress urinary incontinence. While the direction of effects and effect sizes are relatively unchanged from the 2016 version of this review, the certainty and precision of the findings have all improved with a larger sample size. In addition, the clinical relevance of these data has improved, with 10 trials reporting 3- to 10-year outcomes. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. Data on the management of recurrent prolapse are of limited quality. Given the risk-benefit profile, we recommend that any use of permanent transvaginal mesh should be conducted under the oversight of the local ethics committee in compliance with local regulatory recommendations. Data are not supportive of absorbable meshes or biological grafts for the management of transvaginal prolapse.

Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Stress urinary incontinence imposes a significant health and economic burden on individuals and society. Single-incision slings are a minimally-invasive treatment option for stress urinary incontinence. They involve passing a short synthetic device through the anterior vaginal wall to support the mid-urethra. The use of polypropylene mesh in urogynaecology, including mid-urethral slings, is restricted in many countries. This is a review update (previous search date 2012).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of single-incision sling operations for treating urinary incontinence in women, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, and two trials registers. We handsearched journals, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles to 20 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with stress (or stress-predominant mixed) urinary incontinence in which at least one, but not all, trial arms included a single-incision sling.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcome was subjective cure or improvement of urinary incontinence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 studies with a total of 8051 women in this review. We did not identify any studies comparing single-incision slings to no treatment, conservative treatment, colposuspension, or laparoscopic procedures. We assessed most studies as being at low or unclear risk of bias, with five studies at high risk of bias for outcome assessment. Sixteen trials used TVT-Secur, a single-incision sling withdrawn from the market in 2013. The primary analysis in this review excludes trials using TVT-Secur. We report separate analyses for these trials, which did not substantially alter the effect estimates. We identified two cost-effectiveness analyses and one cost-minimisation analysis. Single-incision sling versus autologous fascial sling One study (70 women) compared single-incision slings to autologous fascial slings. It is uncertain if single-incision slings have any effect on risk of dyspareunia (painful sex) or mesh exposure, extrusion or erosion compared with autologous fascial slings. Subjective cure or improvement of urinary incontinence at 12 months, patient-reported pain at 24 months or longer, number of women with urinary retention, quality of life at 12 months and the number of women requiring repeat continence surgery or sling revision were not reported for this comparison. Single-incision sling versus retropubic sling Ten studies compared single-incision slings to retropubic slings. There may be little to no difference between single-incision slings and retropubic slings in subjective cure or improvement of incontinence at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.07; 2 trials, 297 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether single-incision slings increase the risk of mesh exposure, extrusion or erosion compared with retropubic minimally-invasive slings; the wide confidence interval is consistent with both benefit and harm (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.82; 3 trials, 267 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether single-incision slings lead to fewer women having postoperative urinary retention compared with retropubic slings; the wide confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and harm (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.84; 2 trials, 209 women; low-certainty evidence). The effect of single-incision slings on the risk of repeat continence surgery or mesh revision compared with retropubic slings is uncertain (RR 4.19, 95% CI 0.31 to 57.28; 2 trials, 182 women; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported quality of life, but not in a suitable format for analysis. Patient-reported pain at more than 24 months and the number of women with dyspareunia were not reported for this comparison. We downgraded the evidence due to concerns about risks of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. Single-incision sling versus transobturator sling Fifty-one studies compared single-incision slings to transobturator slings. The evidence ranged from high to low certainty. There is no evidence of a difference in subjective cure or improvement of incontinence at 12 months when comparing single-incision slings with transobturator slings (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 17 trials, 2359 women; high-certainty evidence). Single-incision slings probably have a reduced risk of patient-reported pain at 24 months post-surgery compared with transobturator slings (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.68; 2 trials, 250 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of single-incision slings on the risk of dyspareunia is uncertain compared with transobturator slings, as the wide confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.48; 8 trials, 810 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There are a similar number of mesh exposures, extrusions or erosions with single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96; 16 trials, 2378 women; high-certainty evidence). Single-incision slings probably result in similar or reduced cases of postoperative urinary retention compared with transobturator slings (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97; 23 trials, 2891 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with single-incision slings may have lower quality of life at 12 months compared to transobturator slings (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.39; 8 trials, 698 women; low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether single-incision slings lead to slightly more women requiring repeat continence surgery or mesh revision compared with transobturator slings (95% CI consistent with possible benefit and harm; RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.16; 13 trials, 1460 women; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence due to indirectness, imprecision and risks of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision sling operations have been extensively researched in randomised controlled trials. They may be as effective as retropubic slings and are as effective as transobturator slings for subjective cure or improvement of stress urinary incontinence at 12 months. It is uncertain if single-incision slings lead to better or worse rates of subjective cure or improvement compared with autologous fascial slings. There are still uncertainties regarding adverse events and longer-term outcomes. Therefore, longer-term data are needed to clarify the safety and long-term effectiveness of single-incision slings compared to other mid-urethral slings.

Traditional suburethral sling operations for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Stress urinary incontinence constitutes a significant health and economic burden to society. Traditional suburethral slings are one of the surgical operations used to treat women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of traditional suburethral slings on stress or mixed incontinence in comparison with other management options.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 3 June 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials that included traditional suburethral slings for the treatment of stress or mixed urinary incontinence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three reviewers independently extracted data from included trials onto a standard form and assessed trial methodological quality. The data abstracted were relevant to predetermined outcome measures. Where appropriate, we calculated a summary statistic: a relative risk for dichotomous data and a weighted mean difference for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 trials involving 2284 women. The quality of evidence was moderate for most trials and there was generally short follow-up ranging from 6 to 24 months.One medium-sized trial compared traditional suburethral sling operations with oxybutynin in the treatment of women with mixed urinary incontinence. Surgery appeared to be more effective than drugs in treating participant-reported incontinence (n = 75, risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.43).One trial found that traditional slings were more effective than transurethral injectable treatment (RR for clinician-assessed incontinence within a year 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.21)Seven trials compared slings with open abdominal retropubic colposuspension. Participant-reported incontinence was lower with the slings after one year (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90), but not when assessed by clinicians. Colposuspension, however, was associated with fewer peri-operative complications, shorter duration of use of indwelling catheter and less long-term voiding dysfunction. One study showed there was a 20% lower risk of bladder perforation with the sling procedure but a 50% increase in urinary tract infection with the sling procedure compared with colposuspension. Fewer women developed prolapse after slings (compared with after colposuspension) in two small trials but this did not reach statistical significance.Twelve trials addressed the comparison between traditional sling operations and minimally invasive sling operations. These seemed to be equally effective in the short term (RR for incontinence within first year 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20) but minimally invasive slings had a shorter operating time, fewer peri-operative complications (other than bladder perforation) and some evidence of less post-operative voiding dysfunction and detrusor symptoms.Six trials compared one type of traditional sling with another. Materials included porcine dermis, lyophilised dura mater, fascia lata, vaginal wall, autologous dermis and rectus fascia. Participant-reported improvement rates within the first year favoured the traditional autologous material rectus fascia over other biological materials (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98). There were more complications with the use of non-absorbable Gore-Tex in one trial.Data for comparison of bladder neck needle suspension with suburethral slings were inconclusive because they came from a single trial with a small specialised population.No trials compared traditional suburethral slings with anterior repair, laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension or artificial sphincters. Most trials did not distinguish between women having surgery for primary or recurrent incontinence when reporting participant characteristics.For most of the comparisons, clinically important differences could not be ruled out.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Traditional slings seem to be as effective as minimally invasive slings, but had higher rates of adverse effects. This should be interpreted with some caution however, as the quality of evidence for the studies was variable, follow-up short and populations small, particularly for identifying complication rates. Tradional sling procedures appeared to confer a similar cure rate in comparison to open retropubic colposuspension, but the long-term adverse event profile is still unclear. A brief economic commentary (BEC) identified two studies suggesting that traditional slings may be more cost-effective compared with collagen injection but not cost-effective when compared with minimally invasive sling operations. Reliable evidence to clarify whether or not traditional suburethral slings may be better or worse than other surgical or conservative management options is lacking.

Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

A wide variety of grafts have been introduced with the aim of improving the outcomes of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ongoing trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (6 July 2015). We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 RCTs (4023 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were poor reporting of study methods, inconsistency, and imprecision. Permanent mesh versus native tissue repairAwareness of prolapse at one to three years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1614, I(2) = 3%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 19% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 10% and 15% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair.Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, 12 RCTs, n = 1675, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for continence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.83, 9 RCTs, n = 1284, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). More women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.81, 7 RCTs, n = 867, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 5% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7% and 18% in the permanent mesh group will do so. Eight per cent of women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for mesh exposure.Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53, 21 RCTs, n = 2494, I(2) = 73%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 38% of women have recurrent prolapse after native tissue repair, between 11% and 20% will do so after mesh repair.Permanent mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.82, 12 RCTs, 1512 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.92, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.50, 11 RCTs, n = 1514, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.47, 11 RCTs, n = 764, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). Effects on quality of life were uncertain due to the very low-quality evidence. Absorbable mesh versus native tissue repairThere was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair at two years on the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44, 1 RCT, n = 54).There was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair on the rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40, 1 RCT, n = 66).Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, 3 RCTs, n = 292, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence)The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for urinary outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Biological graft versus native tissue repairThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43, 7 RCTs, n = 777, low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the outcome repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.44, 5 RCTs, n = 306, I(2) = 8%, low-quality evidence).The effect of either approach was very uncertain for recurrent prolapse (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.47, 7 RCTs, n = 587, I(2) = 59%, very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life outcomes (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, reoperation for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of reoperation for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure and higher rates of bladder injury at surgery and de novo stress urinary incontinence. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. While it is possible that in women with higher risk of recurrence the benefits may outweigh the risks, there is currently no evidence to support this position.Limited evidence suggests that absorbable mesh may reduce rates of recurrent prolapse on examination compared to native tissue repair, but there was insufficient evidence on absorbable mesh for us to draw any conclusions for other outcomes. There was also insufficient evidence for us to draw any conclusions regarding biological grafts compared to native tissue repair.In 2011, many transvaginal permanent meshes were voluntarily withdrawn from the market, and the newer, lightweight transvaginal permanent meshes still available have not been evaluated within a RCT. In the meantime, these newer transvaginal meshes should be utilised under the discretion of the ethics committee.