↓ Skip to main content

Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
51 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012079
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Maher, Benjamin Feiner, Kaven Baessler, Corina Christmann-Schmid, Nir Haya, Jane Marjoribanks

Abstract

A wide variety of grafts have been introduced with the aim of improving the outcomes of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse. To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ongoing trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (6 July 2015). We also contacted researchers in the field. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue). Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination. We included 37 RCTs (4023 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were poor reporting of study methods, inconsistency, and imprecision. Permanent mesh versus native tissue repairAwareness of prolapse at one to three years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1614, I(2) = 3%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 19% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 10% and 15% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair.Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, 12 RCTs, n = 1675, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for continence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.83, 9 RCTs, n = 1284, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). More women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.81, 7 RCTs, n = 867, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 5% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7% and 18% in the permanent mesh group will do so. Eight per cent of women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for mesh exposure.Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53, 21 RCTs, n = 2494, I(2) = 73%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 38% of women have recurrent prolapse after native tissue repair, between 11% and 20% will do so after mesh repair.Permanent mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.82, 12 RCTs, 1512 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.92, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.50, 11 RCTs, n = 1514, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.47, 11 RCTs, n = 764, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). Effects on quality of life were uncertain due to the very low-quality evidence. Absorbable mesh versus native tissue repairThere was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair at two years on the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44, 1 RCT, n = 54).There was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair on the rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40, 1 RCT, n = 66).Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, 3 RCTs, n = 292, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence)The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for urinary outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Biological graft versus native tissue repairThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43, 7 RCTs, n = 777, low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the outcome repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.44, 5 RCTs, n = 306, I(2) = 8%, low-quality evidence).The effect of either approach was very uncertain for recurrent prolapse (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.47, 7 RCTs, n = 587, I(2) = 59%, very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life outcomes (very low-quality evidence). While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, reoperation for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of reoperation for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure and higher rates of bladder injury at surgery and de novo stress urinary incontinence. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. While it is possible that in women with higher risk of recurrence the benefits may outweigh the risks, there is currently no evidence to support this position.Limited evidence suggests that absorbable mesh may reduce rates of recurrent prolapse on examination compared to native tissue repair, but there was insufficient evidence on absorbable mesh for us to draw any conclusions for other outcomes. There was also insufficient evidence for us to draw any conclusions regarding biological grafts compared to native tissue repair.In 2011, many transvaginal permanent meshes were voluntarily withdrawn from the market, and the newer, lightweight transvaginal permanent meshes still available have not been evaluated within a RCT. In the meantime, these newer transvaginal meshes should be utilised under the discretion of the ethics committee.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 159 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 16%
Unspecified 23 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 14%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Other 50 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 55%
Unspecified 34 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Engineering 6 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 14 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 158. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2019.
All research outputs
#88,810
of 13,390,335 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#187
of 10,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,341
of 338,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,390,335 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.