The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare native tissue repair (NTR) against transvaginal mesh augmentation for the repair of anterior vaginal prolapse. A total of 2289 articles were found but only 27 (24.8 %) were included in the review. Guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were followed to guide the process of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The quality of the observational studies was evaluated according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, whereas the quality of randomized control trials (RCT) was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias scale. The mesh repair intervention was associated with a higher anatomical cure rate in comparison with NTR repair when the follow-up was ≤24 months [pooled risk difference (95 % CI): -0.18 % (-0.22 %; 0.13 %); p-value: <0.0001; I2: 36.0 %]. Studies reporting anatomical failure had similar findings [pooled risk difference (95 % CI): 0.17 % (0.01 %; 0.33 %); p-value: 0.03; I2: 88.6 %]. No differences in the risk of re-operation were observed between NTR repair and mesh augmentation. Pooled risk differences in the incidence of post-surgical and late complications were higher for the mesh repair intervention [-0.05 % (95 % CI: -0.10 %; 0.00 %) p-value: 0.05; I2: 68.3 %] [-0.05 % (95 % CI: -0.14 %; 0.03 %) p-value: 0.25; I2: 82.0 %]. Women who underwent mesh repair reported greater satisfaction than women who underwent NTR [pooled risk difference (95 % CI): -0.07 % (-0.16 %; 0.02 %); p-value: 0.15; I2: 65.3 %]. In conclusion, mesh repair surgery had higher anatomical cure and satisfaction rates, with no differences in re-operation rate, but had higher post-surgical and late complications in comparison with NTR.
Keywords: Anterior vaginal prolapse; Cystocele; Mesh augmentation; Native tissue repair (NTR); Transvaginal mesh repair.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.