Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCarey, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorHiggs, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorGoh, Judithen_US
dc.contributor.authorLim, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorLeong, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorKrause, Hen_US
dc.contributor.authorCornish, Aen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T11:34:24Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T11:34:24Z
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.date.modified2010-05-25T07:49:22Z
dc.identifier.issn1471-0528en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02254.xen_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/29825
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare vaginal repair augmented by mesh with traditional colporrhaphy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Design Prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting Tertiary teaching hospital. Population: One hundred and thirty-nine women with stage 粍 prolapse according to the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system requiring both anterior and posterior compartment repair. Methods: Subjects were randomised to anterior and posterior vaginal repair with mesh augmentation (mesh group, n = 69) or traditional anterior and posterior colporrhaphy (no mesh group, n = 70). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the absence of POP-Q stage 粠prolapse at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were symptoms, quality-of-life outcomes and satisfaction with surgery. Complications were also reported. Results: For subjects attending the 12-month review, success in the mesh group was 81.0% (51 of 63 subjects) compared with 65.6% (40/61) in the no mesh group and was not significantly different (P-value = 0.07). A high level of satisfaction with surgery and improvements in symptoms and quality-of-life data were observed at 12 months compared to baseline in both groups, but there was no significant difference in these outcomes between the two groups. Vaginal mesh exposure occurred in four women in the mesh group (5.6%). De novo dyspareunia was reported by five of 30 (16.7%) sexually active women in the mesh group and five of 33 (15.2%) in the no mesh group at 12 months. Conclusion: In this study, vaginal surgery augmented by mesh did not result in significantly less recurrent prolapse than traditional colporrhaphy 12 months following surgery.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishingen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118523178/homeen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom1380en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto1386en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue10en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecologyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume116en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchMedical and Health Sciences not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode119999en_US
dc.titleVaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trialen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2009
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record