title: Vaginal prolapse repair: suture repair versus mesh augmentation: a urogynecology perspective.
abstract: Based on the growing evidence within our literature, mesh is clearly needed for long-term success for the repair of anterior/apical defects. Clear credentialing and clinical privilege criteria policies are long overdue. Current data are rapidly growing, with level I studies completed that demonstrate that when transvaginal mesh-augmented repair is used in appropriately selected patients for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse, the procedure has a favorable risk/benefit ratio when compared with suture repair. This article highlights the evolving clinical-based experiences of the authors that are primarily grounded in reality-based medicine with the consideration and incorporation of evidence-based medicine.
authors.affiliation: Department of OB/GYN, St Luke's Hospital & Health Network, Allentown, PA 18103, USA. vlucente@fpminstitute.com
authors.forename: Vincent
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Lucente
authors.forename: Miles
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Murphy
authors.forename: Cristina
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Saiz
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D013537:Sutures; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods; D014596:Uterine Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*