The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue showed no clear difference in stress urinary incontinence (de novo) (1‐3 years) compared with polypropylene mesh (low certainty).
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue showed no clear difference in dyspareunia (de novo) (1‐2 years) compared with polypropylene mesh (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether anterior prolapse repair: native tissue changes awareness of prolapse (2 years) compared with absorbable mesh (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether anterior prolapse repair: native tissue changes repeat surgery for prolapse (stage 2 or greater) at 2 years compared with absorbable mesh (very low certainty).
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue probably leads to higher recurrent anterior compartment prolapse (3 months to 2 years) compared with absorbable mesh (moderate certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
It is very uncertain whether anterior prolapse repair: native tissue changes stress urinary incontinence (2 years) compared with absorbable mesh (very low certainty).
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue probably leads to higher awareness of prolapse (1‐3 years) compared with polypropylene mesh (moderate certainty).
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue probably leads to higher repeat surgery for prolapse (1‐3 years) compared with polypropylene mesh (moderate certainty).
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue showed no clear difference in repeat surgery for stress urinary incontinence (1‐2 years) compared with polypropylene mesh (low certainty).
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue may leads to higher recurrent anterior compartment prolapse (1‐3 years) compared with polypropylene mesh (low certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse (1 to 2 years) compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in recurrent prolapse on examination compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in visceral injury compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether transvaginal biological graft changes bladder function compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in painful intercourse ‐ de novo dyspareunia compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
It is very uncertain whether transvaginal biological graft changes quality of life compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in awareness of prolapse (1 to 3 years) compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
It is very uncertain whether absorbable tacks changes recurrence (1 year to 31 (median) months) compared with nonabsorbable tacks (very low certainty).