Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2015
Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set.International urogynecology journal · 2018Pooled it
- Anterior colporrhaphy: a standard operation? Systematic review of the technical aspects of a common procedure in randomized controlled trials.International urogynecology journal · 2018Pooled it
- Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- A randomized clinical trial comparing internal and external pessaries in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women: A pilot study.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Trial
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Quality of Life Assessment After Pelvic Prolapse Surgery With and Without Mesh: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Autoimmune/Autoinflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA Syndrome) After Polypropylene Mesh Implantation - Protocol of a Pilot Study for Diagnostics and Treatment.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Article
- Complications of Pelvic Prolapse Surgery Using Mesh: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy combined with anterior and posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse: a single center retrospective study.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2022Article
- Current surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: Strategies for the improvement of surgical outcomes.Investigative and clinical urology · 2019Review
- Native-tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with nonabsorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Modified McCall culdoplasty versus Shull suspension in pelvic prolapse primary repair: a retrospective study.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Reasons for and Against Use of Non-absorbable, Synthetic Mesh During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair, According to the Prolapsed Compartment.Advances in therapy · 2017Review
- Utero-vaginal suspension using bilateral vaginal anterior sacrospinous fixation with mesh: intermediate results of a cohort study.International urogynecology journal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis trial aimed to compare the outcomes of native vaginal tissue repair versus polypropylene mesh repair for the treatment of severe genital prolapse.
methodsThis multicenter randomized trial included 184 women, with POP-Q stage 3 or 4. They were randomly assigned to undergo surgical treatment using native tissue repair (n = 90) or synthetic mesh repair (n = 94). Native tissue repair surgery was performed according to site-specific defects, including sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical defects. Mesh repair (Prolift™) was performed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Hysterectomy was performed in all cases of uterine prolapse. Statistical tests were used to compare between-group and within-group differences before the surgery and at 1-year follow-up. We considered cure to have occurred when the POP-Q point evaluation was equal to or less than 0 and POP-Q point C better than or equal to half the total vaginal length (TVL) after 1 year. The patients answered the Prolapse Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (PQoL) and the Sexual Quotient Female Version (QS-F) questionnaire.
resultsBoth groups were homogeneous preoperatively. There were no differences between the groups in operative time, complications or pain. At 1-year follow-up, anatomical cure rates were better in the mesh group in the anterior compartment (p = 0.019). Significant improvement in PQoL scores at 1-year follow up were observed in each group; between-group comparisons of changes in PQoL scores revealed greater improvement in the mesh group.
conclusionBoth techniques were effective. Anatomical efficacy was superior in the mesh group regarding the anterior compartment; quality of life changes were also greater in the mesh group. Complications were significantly higher in the mesh group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25199496What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.