What do systematic reviews say?

Any transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair

It is very uncertain whether transvaginal permanent mesh changes quality of life compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).

• Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  9 studies · 1365 participants
  Very low

Zinc oxide mesh vs placebo mesh

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Dressings and topical agents for the management of open wounds after surgical treatment for sacrococcygeal pilonidal… 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Prosthetic mesh placement vs usual care

• Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 263 participants
  GRADE not reported

Mersilene mesh vs autogenous fascia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Types of materials for frontalis sling surgery for congenital ptosis 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Laparoscopic colposuspension with sutures vs laparoscopic colposuspension with mesh and staples

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair

It is very uncertain whether transvaginal biological graft changes quality of life compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).

• Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 112 participants
  Very low

Absorbable tacks plus absorbable sutures vs nonabsorbable tacks plus nonabsorbable sutures

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Nonabsorbable tacks vs nonabsorbable tacks plus nonabsorbable sutures

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Nonabsorbable tacks plus absorbable sutures vs nonabsorbable tacks only

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Nonabsorbable tacks plus absorbable sutures vs nonabsorbable tacks plus nonabsorbable sutures

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Nonabsorbable tacks vs nonabsorbable sutures

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Absorbable tacks vs absorbable sutures

• Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 48 participants
  Very low

Nonabsorbable tacks vs fibrin sealant

• Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 50 participants
  Low

Absorbable tacks vs fibrin sealant

• Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 50 participants
  Low