Primary surgical management of anterior pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anterior compartment prolapse is the most common pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with a range of surgical treatment options available. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatments for the repair of anterior POP. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing surgical treatments for women with POP. Network meta-analysis was possible for anterior POP, same-site recurrence outcome. A Markov model was used to compare the cost-utility of surgical treatments for the primary repair of anterior POP from a UK National Health Service perspective. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 eligible trials for the network meta-analysis involving eight surgical treatments tested on 3194 women. Synthetic mesh was the most effective in preventing recurrence at the same site. There was no evidence to suggest a difference between synthetic non-absorbable mesh, synthetic partially absorbable mesh, and biological mesh. The cost-utility analysis, which incorporated effectiveness, complications and cost data, found non-mesh repair to have the highest probability of being cost-effective. The conclusions were robust to model inputs including effectiveness, costs and utility values. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior colporrhaphy augmented with mesh appeared to be cost-ineffective in women requiring primary repair of anterior POP. There is a need for further research on long-term effectiveness and the safety of mesh products to establish their relative cost-effectiveness with a greater certainty. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: New study finds mesh cost-ineffective in women with anterior pelvic organ prolapse.

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

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.