Mesh Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Native Tissue Vaginal Repair A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs in women with apical prolapse. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 4, 2012. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: For anatomic and functional analyses, we included studies comparing mesh sacrocolpopexy to native tissue vaginal repairs with at least 6 months follow-up. The primary outcome was anatomic "success" after surgery. Secondary outcomes were reoperation and symptom outcomes. We included large case series and comparative studies with shorter follow-up to increase power for adverse event analyses. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Evidence quality was assessed with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Meta-analyses were performed when at least three studies reported the same outcome. We included 13 comparative studies for anatomic success, reoperation, and symptom outcomes. Moderate-quality evidence supports improved anatomic outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy; very low-quality evidence shows no differences in reoperation between sacrocolpopexy and native tissue vaginal repairs. Evidence was insufficient regarding which procedures result in improved bladder or bowel symptoms. Low-quality evidence showed no differences in postoperative sexual function. Adverse event data were compiled and meta-analyzed from 79 studies. When including larger noncomparative studies, ileus or small bowel obstruction (2.7% compared with 0.2%, P<.01), mesh or suture complications (4.2% compared with 0.4%, P<.01), and thromboembolic phenomena (0.6% compared with 0.1%, P=.03) were more common after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs. CONCLUSION: When anatomic durability is a priority, we suggest that mesh sacrocolpopexy may be the preferred surgical option. When minimizing adverse events or reoperation is the priority, there is no strong evidence supporting one approach over the other.