A multicenter, randomized trial comparing pelvic organ prolapse surgical treatment with native tissue and synthetic mesh: A 5-year follow-up study

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_SILVEIRA_A_multicenter_randomized_trial_comparing_pelvic_organ_prolapse_2020.PDF.pdf (901.98 KB)
Citações na Scopus
14
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2020
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
WILEY
Autores
AUGE, Antomio P. F.
JARMY-DIBELLA, Zsuzsanna I. K.
CARRAMAO, Silvia
RODRIGUES, Claudinei Alves
DOUMOUCHTSIS, Stergios K.
Citação
NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, v.39, n.3, p.1002-1011, 2020
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Introduction The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes in patients who underwent either native tissue repair or monofilament macroporous polypropylene mesh. Methods This multicenter, randomized trial included-at the end of 5 years follow-up-122 women with severe pelvic organ prolapse, who were randomly assigned to undergo surgical treatment using native tissue repair (native tissue group, n = 59) or synthetic mesh repair (mesh group, n = 63). Cure criterion was when pelvic organ prolapse-quantification (POP-Q) point was <= 0. Quality of life was assessed using the prolapse quality-of-life questionnaire and sexual function with the quality of sexual function. Results Groups were homogeneous preoperatively with the exception of the previous pelvic surgery variable, which was higher in mesh (P = .019). Cure rate was significantly better for mesh group in the anterior compartment (P = .002) and in the combination of all compartments (P = .001). Native tissue group was significantly better when there was prolapse in the posterior and apical compartment (P = .031). In the quality of life analysis, mesh group showed a significant improvement compared with native tissue group (P = .004). Complications were significantly higher in mesh and recurrence in native tissue. Regarding the reoperation rate, there was no difference between groups, but native tissue had a higher reoperation rate due to recurrence (P = .031). Conclusions Outcomes in women with severe POP were better with mesh use than native tissue repair, both in the anterior compartment and in the multicompartmental prolapse after 5-year follow-up. Complications were more common in the mesh group and recurrences were more frequent in the native tissue group.
Palavras-chave
complications, genital prolapse, mesh repair, native tissue repair, surgery
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/36020
Referências
  1. Abdo C., 2006, REV BRAS MED, V63, P477
  2. [Anonymous], 2017, FEMALE PELVIC MED RE, V23, P353, DOI 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000498
  3. Balzarro M, 2018, NEUROUROL URODYNAM, V37, P278, DOI 10.1002/nau.23288
  4. da Silveira SDB, 2015, INT UROGYNECOL J, V26, P335, DOI 10.1007/s00192-014-2501-z
  5. Bump RC, 1996, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V175, P10, DOI 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0
  6. de Oliveira MS, 2009, INT UROGYNECOL J, V20, P1191, DOI 10.1007/s00192-009-0934-6
  7. Digesu GA, 2005, INT UROGYNECOL J, V16, P176, DOI 10.1007/s00192-004-1225-x
  8. Dwyer PL, 2006, INT UROGYNECOL J, V17, pS10, DOI 10.1007/s00192-006-0103-0
  9. Fatton BF, 2006, INT UROGYNECOL J, V17, pS171
  10. Fayyad AM, 2011, INT UROGYNECOL J, V22, P157, DOI 10.1007/s00192-010-1260-8
  11. FDA, UPD SER COMPL ASS TR
  12. FDA, UR SURG MESH UPD SAF
  13. Halaska M, 2012, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V207, DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.016
  14. Hopewell S, 2008, PLOS MED, V5, P48, DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020
  15. Houman J, 2017, CURR UROL REP, V18, DOI 10.1007/s11934-017-0648-0
  16. Jelovsek JE, 2018, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V319, P1554, DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.2827
  17. Karram M, 2013, INT UROGYNECOL J, V24, P1835, DOI 10.1007/s00192-013-2174-z
  18. Madsen LD, 2017, INT UROGYNECOL J, V28, P49, DOI 10.1007/s00192-016-3072-y
  19. Maher C, 2016, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD012376
  20. Ng C C M, 2004, Singapore Med J, V45, P475
  21. Pecheux O, 2019, EUR J OBSTET GYN R B, V232, P33, DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.10.009
  22. Schimpf MO, 2016, OBSTET GYNECOL, V128, P81, DOI 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001451
  23. Toozs-Hobson P, 2012, NEUROUROL URODYNAM, V31, P415, DOI 10.1002/nau.22238
  24. Williamson A, 2005, J CLIN NURS, V14, P798, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x
  25. Withagen MI, 2012, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V119, P354, DOI 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03231.x

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MOG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HU
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/58