The use of biological materials in urogynecologic reconstruction: a systematic review. [Review]
Citation: Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 130(5 Suppl 2):242S-53S, 2012 Nov.PMID: 23096979Institution: MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Obstetrics and Gynecology/Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive SurgeryForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal Article | ReviewSubject headings: *Biocompatible Materials | *Bioprosthesis | *Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/mt [Methods] | *Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/mt [Methods] | *Surgical Mesh | *Urologic Surgical Procedures/mt [Methods] | Acellular Dermis | Cystocele/su [Surgery] | Double-Blind Method | Female | Humans | Male | Pelvic Organ Prolapse/su [Surgery] | Polypropylenes | Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic | Rectocele/su [Surgery] | Suburethral Slings | Urinary Incontinence/su [Surgery]Year: 2012Abstract: There are numerous randomized controlled trials examining biological materials in urogynecologic surgery. For prolapse surgery, the addition of a biological graft adds no benefit compared with native tissue repairs for rectocele repair. Conflicting data exist regarding cystocele repair. Synthetic mesh repairs provide superior anatomical support for sacral colpopexy and cystocele repair compared with biologic grafts. However, biological and synthetic mesh slings have equivalent success rates for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Contrary to prior assumptions that biologic grafts add tissue strength without graft-related complications, there appears to be no benefit to the use of biological materials for prolapse and incontinence surgery.Fiscal year: FY2013Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2013-09-17| Item type | Current library | Collection | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal Article | MedStar Authors Catalog | Article | 23096979 | Available | 23096979 |
There are numerous randomized controlled trials examining biological materials in urogynecologic surgery. For prolapse surgery, the addition of a biological graft adds no benefit compared with native tissue repairs for rectocele repair. Conflicting data exist regarding cystocele repair. Synthetic mesh repairs provide superior anatomical support for sacral colpopexy and cystocele repair compared with biologic grafts. However, biological and synthetic mesh slings have equivalent success rates for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Contrary to prior assumptions that biologic grafts add tissue strength without graft-related complications, there appears to be no benefit to the use of biological materials for prolapse and incontinence surgery.
English