Erschienen in:
01.08.2009 | Editorial
The great mesh debate
verfasst von:
Robert M. Freeman, Gunnar Lose
Erschienen in:
International Urogynecology Journal
|
Ausgabe 8/2009
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Excerpt
The introduction of mesh for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery has generated considerable debate regarding efficacy and safety. Of the few randomised controlled trials which exist, most are underpowered, and the data reported in systematic reviews are of poor quality [
1,
2]. For example, in the one commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK, the authors concluded: “The evidence for most efficacy and safety outcomes was too sparse to provide meaningful conclusions about the use of mesh/graft in anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery” [
2,
3]. Therefore, these procedures should be considered experimental (i.e. a protocol should be available and results published (Declaration of Helsinki) until such evidence is available that patients can be counselled accordingly [
4]. …
