title: Evidence-based medicine for polypropylene mesh use compared with native tissue vaginal prolapse repair.
abstract: A review of the current medical literature for the use of polypropylene (PP) mesh for vaginally performed prolapse repair, including only those studies reporting prospective, randomized, controlled trials compared with native tissue repairs was undertaken. Five full manuscript publications and 4 studies still in abstract form were all consistent with PP mesh producing better anatomical results for cystocele repair, but when functional results in terms of the patient's quality of life are considered, no significant difference is found between PP mesh and native tissue repairs. PP mesh use results in better anatomical results in the short term but at a cost of repeated surgeries because of erosions and other complications. Patients do not recognize any added benefit from the use of these prostheses in their daily lives.
authors: Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, University of Louisville, School of Medicine, Louisville, KY 40202, USA. catalinaisland1@cs.com
authors: Donald R
authors: DR
authors: Ostergard
mesh_terms: D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D011126:Polypropylenes / Q000737:chemistry*; D011379:Prognosis; D011788:Quality of Life; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D018570:Risk Assessment; D053825:Suburethral Slings; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D016378:Tissue Transplantation / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014596:Uterine Prolapse / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*
chemical_list: D011126:Polypropylenes