Clinical effectiveness of prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction versus traditional hysterectomy for pelvic floor dysfunction:a meta-analysis
10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.43.026
- VernacularTitle:Prolift生物网片材料盆底重建与传统手术治疗盆底功能障碍的Meta分析
- Author:
Jianping XIAO
;
Liyan YAO
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- From:
Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research
2014;(43):7039-7046
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:In recent years, prolift mesh pelvic materials have been widely used in the pelvic floor reconstruction. Scholars have been exploring the advantages and disadvantages of the prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction and the traditional hysterectomy for pelvic floor reconstruction. ＜br> OBJECTIVE:To systemical y assess prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction versus traditional hysterectomy for pelvic floor reconstruction. ＜br> METHODS:Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, Medline databases were searched for randomized control trials (RCTs) related to the clinical effectiveness of prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction versus traditional hysterectomy for pelvic floor reconstruction published from 1996 to 2014. Meta analysis of acquired data was performed through the use of RevMan5.2 software. ＜br> RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Nine RCTs involving 780 patients were included. Of the 780 patients, 398 received prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction and 382 underwent traditional hysterectomy. Compared with, prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction was superior to the traditional hysterectomy group in terms of operative time, intraoperative bleeding, hospitalization duration, evacuation time, postoperative body temperature, and cure rate of 18 months (P＜0.05). However, there were no significant differences in the post-void residual volume, recurrence rate, the cure rate of 6 months and 12 months, quality of sexual life after 1 year postoperatively (P>0.05). These results reveal that the prolift mesh pelvic reconstruction exhibits better short-term effects on the pelvic floor dysfunction, but its long-term effects need to be further verified.
