The Experts below are selected from a list of 102 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marianne Glavindkristensen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
native tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with Nonabsorbable Mesh patient reported outcomes
International Urogynecology Journal, 2017Co-Authors: L D Madsen, Emil Nussler, Ulrik Schioler Kesmodel, Susanne Greisen, Marianne GlavindkristensenAbstract:Introduction We evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after treatment of isolated primary rectocele in routine health-care settings using native-tissue repair or Nonabsorbable Mesh.
-
native tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with Nonabsorbable Mesh patient reported outcomes
International Urogynecology Journal, 2017Co-Authors: L D Madsen, Emil Nussler, Ulrik Schioler Kesmodel, Susanne Greisen, Karl Moller Bek, Marianne GlavindkristensenAbstract:We evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after treatment of isolated primary rectocele in routine health-care settings using native-tissue repair or Nonabsorbable Mesh. We used prospective data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery and included 3988 women with a primary operation for rectocele between 2006 and 2014: 3908 women had native-tissue repair, 80 were operated with Nonabsorbable Mesh. No concurrent operations were performed. Pre- and perioperative data were collected from doctors and patients. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated 2 and 12 months after the operation. Only validated questionnaires were used. One year after native-tissue repair, 77.8 % (76.4–79.6) felt they were cured, which was defined as never or hardly ever feeling genital protrusion; 74.0 % (72.2–75.7) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 84 % (82.8–85.9) reported improvement of symptoms. After Mesh repair, 89.8 % (77.8–96.6) felt cured, 69.2 % (54.9–81.3) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 86.0 % (72.1–94.7) felt improvement. No significant differences were found between groups. Organ damage was found in 16 (0.4 %) patients in the native-tissue repair group compared with one (1.3 %) patient in the Mesh group [odds ratio (OR) 3.08; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07–20.30]. The rate of de novo dyspareunia after native-tissue repair was 33.1 % (30.4–35.8), comparable with that after Mesh repair. The reoperation rate was 1.1 % (0.8–1.5) in both groups. Most patients were cured and satisfied after native-tissue repair of the posterior vaginal wall, and the patient-reported outcomes were comparable with results after Mesh repair. The risk of serious complications and reoperation were comparable between groups.
B Gabriel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
lower exposure rates of partially absorbable Mesh compared to Nonabsorbable Mesh for cystocele treatment 3 year follow up of a prospective randomized trial
International Urogynecology Journal, 2013Co-Authors: Juliane Farthmann, D Watermann, Achim Niesel, C Funfgeld, A Kraus, F Lenz, H J Augenstein, E Graf, B GabrielAbstract:Introduction and hypothesis In surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) the use of alloplastic Meshes has become common. Among possible complications, Mesh exposure is the most frequent problem. It is hypothesized that exposure rates are correlated to Mesh weight and the amount of foreign material. Therefore, we conducted a prospective open-label randomized multicenter trial comparing a conventional polypropylene Mesh (PP) with a partially absorbable polypropylene Mesh (PA) for cystocele treatment.
-
lower exposure rates of partially absorbable Mesh compared to Nonabsorbable Mesh for cystocele treatment 3 year follow up of a prospective randomized trial
International Urogynecology Journal, 2013Co-Authors: Juliane Farthmann, D Watermann, Achim Niesel, C Funfgeld, A Kraus, F Lenz, H J Augenstein, E Graf, B GabrielAbstract:In surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) the use of alloplastic Meshes has become common. Among possible complications, Mesh exposure is the most frequent problem. It is hypothesized that exposure rates are correlated to Mesh weight and the amount of foreign material. Therefore, we conducted a prospective open-label randomized multicenter trial comparing a conventional polypropylene Mesh (PP) with a partially absorbable polypropylene Mesh (PA) for cystocele treatment. A total of 200 patients with POP > stage I were randomized either to a conventional or a partially absorbable Mesh. Exposure rates were observed after 3, 12, and 36 months and correlated to Mesh material, patient characteristics, intraoperative data, and treatment centers. Furthermore, management of Mesh exposure, satisfaction with surgery, and postoperative pain were evaluated. At all follow-up intervals Mesh exposure rate was smaller in the group of the partially absorbable Mesh (3 months PP 11.3 % vs PA 3.2 %, p = 0.0492; 12 months 6.6 % vs 6.3 %; 36 months 7.5 % vs 3.4 %). Over the course of time, Mesh exposure was observed in 27 patients, with surgical intervention necessary in 11 patients. The rate of recurrent POP was higher (p > 0.05) in patients with the partially absorbable Mesh. The majority of patients were fully satisfied with the operation (52.8 %) and had no pelvic floor pain (67.5 %). In this prospective, randomized trial with a long-term follow-up there was a low exposure rate in both treatment groups with a trend toward fewer exposures in the group of the partially absorbable Mesh.
Glyn G Jamieson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
five year follow up of a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures versus absorbable versus Nonabsorbable Mesh
Annals of Surgery, 2020Co-Authors: David I Watson, Tanya Irvine, Sarah K Thompson, Peter G Devitt, Simon D Woods, Ahmad Aly, Susan Gan, Philip A Game, Glyn G JamiesonAbstract:OBJECTIVE To determine whether absorbable or Nonabsorbable Mesh repair of large hiatus hernias is followed by less recurrences at late follow-up compared to sutured repair. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Radiological recurrences have been reported in up to 30% of patients after repair of large hiatus hernias, and Mesh repair has been proposed as a solution. Earlier trials have revealed mixed outcomes and early outcomes from a trial reported previously revealed no short-term advantages for Mesh repair. METHODS Multicentre prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of 3 methods of hiatus hernia repair; sutures versus absorbable Mesh versus Nonabsorbable Mesh. Primary outcome - hernia recurrence assessed by barium meal X-ray and endoscopy at 3-4 years. Secondary outcomes - clinical symptom scores at 2, 3, and 5 years. RESULTS 126 patients were enrolled - 43 sutures, 41 absorbable Mesh, and 42 Nonabsorbable Mesh. Clinical outcomes were obtained at 5 years in 89.9%, and objective follow-up was obtained in 72.3%. A recurrent hernia (any size) was identified in 39.3% after suture repair, 56.7% - absorbable Mesh, and 42.9% - Nonabsorbable Mesh (P = 0.371). Clinical outcomes were similar at 5 years, except chest pain, diarrhea, and bloat symptoms which were more common after repair with absorbable Mesh. CONCLUSIONS No advantages were demonstrated for Mesh repair at up to 5 years follow-up, and symptom outcomes were worse after repair with absorbable Mesh. The longer-term results from this trial do not support Mesh repair for large hiatus hernias.
-
laparoscopic repair of very large hiatus hernia with sutures versus absorbable Mesh versus Nonabsorbable Mesh a randomized controlled trial
Annals of Surgery, 2015Co-Authors: David I Watson, Sarah K Thompson, Peter G Devitt, Lorelle Smith, Simon D Woods, Ahmad Aly, Susan Gan, Philip A Game, Glyn G JamiesonAbstract:Objective: Determine whether absorbable or Nonabsorbable Mesh in repair of large hiatus hernias reduces the risk of recurrence, compared with suture repair. Background: Repair of large hiatus hernia is associated with radiological recurrence rates of up to 30%, and to improve outcomes Mesh repair has been recommended. Previous trials have shown less short-term recurrence with Mesh, but adverse outcomes limit Mesh use. Methods: Multicentre prospective double blind randomized controlled trial of 3 methods of repair: sutures versus absorbable Mesh versus Nonabsorbable Mesh. Primary outcome—hernia recurrence assessed by barium meal radiology and endoscopy at 6 months. Secondary outcomes—clinical symptom scores at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: A total of 126 patients enrolled: 43 sutures, 41 absorbable Mesh, and 42 Nonabsorbable Mesh. Among them, 96.0% were followed up to 12 months, with objective follow-up data in 92.9%. A recurrent hernia (any size) was identified in 23.1% after suture repair, 30.8% after absorbable Mesh, and 12.8% after Nonabsorbable Mesh (P = 0.161). Clinical outcomes were similar, except less heartburn at 3 and 6 months and less bloating at 12 months with Nonabsorbable Mesh; more heartburn at 3 months, odynophagia at 1 month, nausea at 3 and 12 months, wheezing at 6 months; and inability to belch at 12 months after absorbable Mesh. The magnitudes of the clinical differences were small. Conclusions: No significant differences were seen for recurrent hiatus hernia, and the clinical differences were unlikely to be clinically significant. Overall outcomes after sutured repair were similar to Mesh repair.
L D Madsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
native tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with Nonabsorbable Mesh patient reported outcomes
International Urogynecology Journal, 2017Co-Authors: L D Madsen, Emil Nussler, Ulrik Schioler Kesmodel, Susanne Greisen, Marianne GlavindkristensenAbstract:Introduction We evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after treatment of isolated primary rectocele in routine health-care settings using native-tissue repair or Nonabsorbable Mesh.
-
native tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with Nonabsorbable Mesh patient reported outcomes
International Urogynecology Journal, 2017Co-Authors: L D Madsen, Emil Nussler, Ulrik Schioler Kesmodel, Susanne Greisen, Karl Moller Bek, Marianne GlavindkristensenAbstract:We evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after treatment of isolated primary rectocele in routine health-care settings using native-tissue repair or Nonabsorbable Mesh. We used prospective data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery and included 3988 women with a primary operation for rectocele between 2006 and 2014: 3908 women had native-tissue repair, 80 were operated with Nonabsorbable Mesh. No concurrent operations were performed. Pre- and perioperative data were collected from doctors and patients. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated 2 and 12 months after the operation. Only validated questionnaires were used. One year after native-tissue repair, 77.8 % (76.4–79.6) felt they were cured, which was defined as never or hardly ever feeling genital protrusion; 74.0 % (72.2–75.7) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 84 % (82.8–85.9) reported improvement of symptoms. After Mesh repair, 89.8 % (77.8–96.6) felt cured, 69.2 % (54.9–81.3) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 86.0 % (72.1–94.7) felt improvement. No significant differences were found between groups. Organ damage was found in 16 (0.4 %) patients in the native-tissue repair group compared with one (1.3 %) patient in the Mesh group [odds ratio (OR) 3.08; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07–20.30]. The rate of de novo dyspareunia after native-tissue repair was 33.1 % (30.4–35.8), comparable with that after Mesh repair. The reoperation rate was 1.1 % (0.8–1.5) in both groups. Most patients were cured and satisfied after native-tissue repair of the posterior vaginal wall, and the patient-reported outcomes were comparable with results after Mesh repair. The risk of serious complications and reoperation were comparable between groups.
Juliane Farthmann - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
lower exposure rates of partially absorbable Mesh compared to Nonabsorbable Mesh for cystocele treatment 3 year follow up of a prospective randomized trial
International Urogynecology Journal, 2013Co-Authors: Juliane Farthmann, D Watermann, Achim Niesel, C Funfgeld, A Kraus, F Lenz, H J Augenstein, E Graf, B GabrielAbstract:Introduction and hypothesis In surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) the use of alloplastic Meshes has become common. Among possible complications, Mesh exposure is the most frequent problem. It is hypothesized that exposure rates are correlated to Mesh weight and the amount of foreign material. Therefore, we conducted a prospective open-label randomized multicenter trial comparing a conventional polypropylene Mesh (PP) with a partially absorbable polypropylene Mesh (PA) for cystocele treatment.
-
lower exposure rates of partially absorbable Mesh compared to Nonabsorbable Mesh for cystocele treatment 3 year follow up of a prospective randomized trial
International Urogynecology Journal, 2013Co-Authors: Juliane Farthmann, D Watermann, Achim Niesel, C Funfgeld, A Kraus, F Lenz, H J Augenstein, E Graf, B GabrielAbstract:In surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) the use of alloplastic Meshes has become common. Among possible complications, Mesh exposure is the most frequent problem. It is hypothesized that exposure rates are correlated to Mesh weight and the amount of foreign material. Therefore, we conducted a prospective open-label randomized multicenter trial comparing a conventional polypropylene Mesh (PP) with a partially absorbable polypropylene Mesh (PA) for cystocele treatment. A total of 200 patients with POP > stage I were randomized either to a conventional or a partially absorbable Mesh. Exposure rates were observed after 3, 12, and 36 months and correlated to Mesh material, patient characteristics, intraoperative data, and treatment centers. Furthermore, management of Mesh exposure, satisfaction with surgery, and postoperative pain were evaluated. At all follow-up intervals Mesh exposure rate was smaller in the group of the partially absorbable Mesh (3 months PP 11.3 % vs PA 3.2 %, p = 0.0492; 12 months 6.6 % vs 6.3 %; 36 months 7.5 % vs 3.4 %). Over the course of time, Mesh exposure was observed in 27 patients, with surgical intervention necessary in 11 patients. The rate of recurrent POP was higher (p > 0.05) in patients with the partially absorbable Mesh. The majority of patients were fully satisfied with the operation (52.8 %) and had no pelvic floor pain (67.5 %). In this prospective, randomized trial with a long-term follow-up there was a low exposure rate in both treatment groups with a trend toward fewer exposures in the group of the partially absorbable Mesh.