4.6 Review

Management of mesh complications following surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15958

关键词

Mesh revision; pelvic organ prolapse; stress urinary incontinence

资金

  1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Mesh surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse can result in complications such as mesh exposure, mesh extrusion, voiding dysfunction, dyspareunia, and pain. There is limited knowledge or guidance on the effective management for mesh-related complications. Objective To determine the best management of mesh complications; a systematic review was conducted as part of the national clinical guideline 'Urinary incontinence (update) and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management'. Search strategy Search strategies were developed for each indication for referral. Selection criteria Relevant interventions included complete or partial mesh removal, mesh division, and non-surgical treatments such as vaginal estrogen. Data collection and analysis Characteristics and outcome data were extracted, and as a result of the heterogeneous nature of the data a narrative synthesis was conducted. Main results Twenty-four studies were included; five provided comparative data and four studies stated the indication for referral. Reported outcomes (including pain, dyspareunia, satisfaction, quality of life, incontinence, mesh exposure, and recurrence) and the reported incidences of these varied widely. Conclusions The current evidence base is limited in quantity and quality and does not permit firm recommendations to be made on the most effective management for mesh-related complications. Robust data are needed so that mesh complications can be managed effectively in the future. Tweetable abstract Systematic review demonstrates that the outcomes following mesh revision surgery are highly variable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据