Cochrane · systematic review · CD012079
Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse
Yeung, E, Baessler, K, Christmann-Schmid, C, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024 · Cochrane Library
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
15
current version
GRADE rated
15
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 26.7%Low 4 · 26.7%Moderate 7 · 46.7%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
Show all 2 versionsTransvaginal permanent mesh compared to native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse
Population: vaginal prolapse
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Awareness of prolapse (0.5 to 7 years) Transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair | RR 0.83 [0.73, 0.95] | 17 studies · 2932 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Repeat surgery (0.5 to 7 years) Transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair | RR 1.56 [1.07, 2.26] | 27 studies · 3916 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Recurrent prolapse on examination (any compartment) Transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair | RR 0.42 [0.32, 0.55] | 25 studies · 3680 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Visceral injury Transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair | RR 3.67 [1.63, 8.28] | 14 studies · 1997 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mesh exposure Transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair | RR 11.1 [6.81, 18.1] | 26 studies · 2980 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Bladder function Transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair | RR 1.5 [1.19, 1.88] | 17 studies · 2001 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Painful intercourse ‐ de novo dyspareunia Transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair | RR 1.22 [0.83, 1.79] | 16 studies · 1308 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life Transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 1365 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Transvaginal biological graft compared to native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse
Population: vaginal prolapse
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Awareness of prolapse (1 to 3 years) Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair | RR 1.06 [0.73, 1.56] | 8 studies · 1374 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Surgery for recurrent prolapse (1 to 2 years) Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair | RR 1.15 [0.75, 1.77] | 6 studies · 899 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Recurrent prolapse on examination Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair | RR 0.96 [0.71, 1.29] | 9 studies · 1278 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Visceral injury Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair | RR 0.34 [0.04, 3.26] | 2 studies · 254 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Bladder function Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair | RR 12.64 [1.6, 100.06] | 2 studies · 143 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Painful intercourse ‐ de novo dyspareunia Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair | RR 1.3 [0.46, 3.66] | 2 studies · 125 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 112 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |