Cochrane · systematic review · CD004014
Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse
Maher, C, Feiner, B, Baessler, K, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecology and FertilityAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
17
current version
GRADE rated
16
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 5.9%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 17.6%Low 6 · 35.3%Moderate 7 · 41.2%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue versus biological graft in women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse
Population: women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Awareness of prolapse (1‐2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs biological graft | RR 0.98 [0.52, 1.82] | 5 studies · 552 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Repeat surgery for prolapse (1‐2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs biological graft | RR 1.02 [0.53, 1.97] | 7 studies · 650 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse (1‐2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs biological graft | RR 1.32 [1.06, 1.65] | 8 studies · 701 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stress urinary incontinence (1‐2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs biological graft | RR 1.44 [0.79, 2.64] | 2 studies · 218 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dyspareunia (1‐2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs biological graft | RR 0.87 [0.39, 1.93] | 2 studies · 151 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue versus polypropylene mesh for women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse
Population: women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Awareness of prolapse (1‐3 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs polypropylene mesh | RR 1.77 [1.37, 2.28] | 9 studies · 1133 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Repeat surgery for prolapse (1‐3 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs polypropylene mesh | RR 2.03 [1.15, 3.58] | 12 studies · 1629 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Repeat surgery for stress urinary incontinence (1‐2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs polypropylene mesh | RR 1.19 [0.6, 2.36] | 5 studies · 881 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse (1‐3 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs polypropylene mesh | RR 3.01 [2.52, 3.6] | 16 studies · 1976 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stress urinary incontinence (de novo) (1‐3 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs polypropylene mesh | RR 0.67 [0.44, 1.01] | 6 studies · 957 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dyspareunia (de novo) (1‐2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs polypropylene mesh | RR 0.54 [0.27, 1.06] | 8 studies · 583 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Repeat surgery for prolapse, SUI or mesh exposure (1‐3 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs polypropylene mesh | RR 0.59 [0.41, 0.83] | 12 studies · 1527 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue versus absorbable mesh for women with anterior and/or posterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse
Population: women with anterior compartment pelvic organ prolapse
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Awareness of prolapse (2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs absorbable mesh | RR 0.95 [0.7, 1.31] | 1 study · 54 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Repeat surgery for prolapse (stage 2 or greater) at 2 years Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs absorbable mesh | RR 2.13 [0.42, 10.82] | 1 study · 66 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse (3 months to 2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs absorbable mesh | RR 1.5 [1.09, 2.06] | 3 studies · 268 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
De novo dyspareunia Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs absorbable mesh | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Stress urinary incontinence (2 years) Anterior prolapse repair: native tissue vs absorbable mesh | RR 0.72 [0.5, 1.05] | 1 study · 49 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |