Vaginal surgery with mesh vs non‐mesh repair
Vaginal surgery with mesh showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with without mesh (moderate certainty).
- RR 0.57 [0.3, 1.06]5 studies · 450 participantsModerate
Vaginal surgery with mesh showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with without mesh (moderate certainty).
Vaginal hysterectomy showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (uterine prolapse) (low certainty).
Vaginal hysteropexy showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with sacral hysteropexy (uterine prolapse) (moderate certainty).
Vaginal procedure probably leads to higher surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with sacral colpopexy (vault prolapse) (moderate certainty).
Vaginal hysterectomy showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with vaginal hysteropexy (uterine prolapse) (moderate certainty).
Vaginal uterosacral colpopexy showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with alternative vaginal native tissue apical suspension (moderate certainty).
Sacral colpopexy: laparoscopic showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with alternative approach (moderate certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse (1 to 2 years) compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).