Top

Published in:

01-02-2014 | Editorial

Comparing operations for POP: the importance of standardization of surgical technique

Authors: Giovanni Favero, Maria A. T. Bortolini

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 2/2014

Excerpt

In the past decade, scientific literature regarding surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has been overwhelmingly about the use of meshes, which has gained credibility after recent publications that report good anatomical outcomes. Nevertheless, results must be considered taking into account the increasing number of reported postoperative complications that have led to some important, cautious reviews and warnings, such as the ones included in the updated US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communication in 2011 [1]. In this scenario, it is appropriate to review previous studies in order to balance safety and efficacy of surgical therapeutic options. …

Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA safety communication: update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertandNotices/umc262435.htm

Stanford EJ, Cassidenti A, Moen MD (2012) Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Int Urogynecol J 23:19–28PubMedCrossRef

Wu MP, Long CY, Huang KU et al (2012) Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: an 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study. Int Urogynecol J 23:865–872PubMedCrossRef

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 30:4

Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, Fine P, Menefee S, Ridgeway B, Visco A, Warren LK, Zhang M, Meikle S (2013) Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA 309(19):2016–2024PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Moen M (2012) Randomized controlled trials in surgery: are we still missing something important? Int Urogynecol J 23:1321–1323PubMedCrossRef

Title: Comparing operations for POP: the importance of standardization of surgical technique
Authors: Giovanni Favero
Maria A. T. Bortolini
Publication date: 01-02-2014
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2244-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparing operations for POP: the importance of standardization of surgical technique

Excerpt

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Excerpt

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Is anatomical failure following anterior vaginal repair associated with weak native vaginal tissues? A biomechanical and immunohistochemical study

Cystocele repair with single-incision, trocarless mesh system

Functional outcomes following surgical management of pain, exposure or extrusion following a suburethral tape insertion for urinary stress incontinence

Inaccuracies in the recently published review on mirabegron

Characterising women with obstetric fistula and urogenital tract injuries in Tanzania

Women’s experiences of doing long-term pelvic floor muscle exercises for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms