We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Surgical results in POP/UI surgery after using PVDF compared to other materials. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES: Synthetic materials have been used for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). During the last 25 years, these materials were composed mostly of polypropylene (PP), whereas recently the use of polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) is of increasing interest due to its characteristics. This study aimed to compare the results after SUI/POP surgery using PVDF versus PP materials by synthesizing the data of relevant existing literature.
STUDY DESIGN: This systematic review and meta-analysis included clinical trials, case-control studies, or cohort studies written in the English language. The search strategy included the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane, and grey literature (congresses IUGA, EUGA, AUGS, FIGO). All studies have to provide numeric data or odds ratios (OR) of developing a specific outcome in surgeries with PVDF compared with outcomes of other used materials. No restrictions of race or ethnicity were applied, nor chronological restrictions. Exclusion criteria were studies that included patients with cognitive impairment, dementia, stroke, or central nervous system trauma. All studies were screened by two reviewers, initially by title and abstract, and afterward by full text. Disagreements were resolved through mutual consent. All studies were assessed for their quality and bias risk. Data were extracted using a data extraction form formulated in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Our results were divided into studies dealing only with SUI patients, studies dealing only with POP patients, and cumulative analysis of variables expressed in both SUI and POP surgery. The primary outcomes were the rates of post-operative recurrence, mesh erosion, and postoperative pain after surgery with PVDF compared to PP. The secondary outcomes were post-operative sexual dissatisfaction, overall satisfaction rates, hematoma, urinary tract infection, de novo urge incontinence, and reoperation rate.
RESULTS: No differences in the post-operative rates of SUI/POP recurrence, mesh erosion, and pain were found after surgery with PVDF vs surgery with PP. Patients after SUI surgery with PVDF tapes had statistically significant lower rates of de-novo urgency compared to the PP group [OR = 0.38 (0.18, 0.88), p = 0.01]; patients after POP surgery with PVDF materials had statistically significant lower rates of de-novo sexual dysfunction compared to the PP group [OR = 0.12 (0.03, 0.46), p = 0.002].
CONCLUSIONS: This study provided evidence that the use of PVDF in SUI/POP surgeries could be a valid alternative to PP. However our results are limited by uncertainty due to the overall low quality of the existent data. Further research and validation would contribute to better surgical techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: This systematic review and meta-analysis included clinical trials, case-control studies, or cohort studies written in the English language. The search strategy included the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane, and grey literature (congresses IUGA, EUGA, AUGS, FIGO). All studies have to provide numeric data or odds ratios (OR) of developing a specific outcome in surgeries with PVDF compared with outcomes of other used materials. No restrictions of race or ethnicity were applied, nor chronological restrictions. Exclusion criteria were studies that included patients with cognitive impairment, dementia, stroke, or central nervous system trauma. All studies were screened by two reviewers, initially by title and abstract, and afterward by full text. Disagreements were resolved through mutual consent. All studies were assessed for their quality and bias risk. Data were extracted using a data extraction form formulated in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Our results were divided into studies dealing only with SUI patients, studies dealing only with POP patients, and cumulative analysis of variables expressed in both SUI and POP surgery. The primary outcomes were the rates of post-operative recurrence, mesh erosion, and postoperative pain after surgery with PVDF compared to PP. The secondary outcomes were post-operative sexual dissatisfaction, overall satisfaction rates, hematoma, urinary tract infection, de novo urge incontinence, and reoperation rate.
RESULTS: No differences in the post-operative rates of SUI/POP recurrence, mesh erosion, and pain were found after surgery with PVDF vs surgery with PP. Patients after SUI surgery with PVDF tapes had statistically significant lower rates of de-novo urgency compared to the PP group [OR = 0.38 (0.18, 0.88), p = 0.01]; patients after POP surgery with PVDF materials had statistically significant lower rates of de-novo sexual dysfunction compared to the PP group [OR = 0.12 (0.03, 0.46), p = 0.002].
CONCLUSIONS: This study provided evidence that the use of PVDF in SUI/POP surgeries could be a valid alternative to PP. However our results are limited by uncertainty due to the overall low quality of the existent data. Further research and validation would contribute to better surgical techniques.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults.Gut 2024 April 17
Systemic lupus erythematosus.Lancet 2024 April 18
Should renin-angiotensin system inhibitors be held prior to major surgery?British Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 May
Ventilator Waveforms May Give Clues to Expiratory Muscle Activity.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2024 April 25
Acute Kidney Injury and Electrolyte Imbalances Caused by Dapagliflozin Short-Term Use.Pharmaceuticals 2024 March 27
Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.Endoscopy 2024 April 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app