13 research outputs found
A multicenter prospective trial evaluating fetal bovine dermal graft (Xenform® Matrix) for pelvic reconstructive surgery
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A prospective multicenter clinical study was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bovine dermal graft (Xenform<sup>® </sup>Matrix, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) during vaginal reconstructive surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forty-five women with ICS stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse (POP) were enrolled at 4 centers. POP-Q, pelvic floor function (PFDI-20), sexual function (PISQ-12), and patient satisfaction tools were used to assess subjects at baseline, and at 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6 and 12 months post surgery. The significance of symptom score changes at 6 months and 1 year were determined by the t-test for paired data. Forty-three of the 45 patients completed the 12 month study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The majority of the subjects had cystocele (98%) and/or rectocele (84%) defects at study entry. At 12 months, 74% of the defects had improved to a stage 0 or 1. Mean PFDI-20 scores improved by 72% (p < 0.001) at 12 months, and PISQ-12 scores were maintained during the follow-up period indicating no decline in sexual function. Three subjects experienced one serious adverse event each; one of the adverse events (constipation) was deemed by the study physician to be unrelated to Xenform<sup>®</sup>. One subject had severe pyelonephritis resulting in dialysis. This subject had a previous history of pyelonephritis, sepsis and acute renal failure. The third subject had a reported recurrent cystocele of moderate severity, possibly related to the device. No graft related erosions or pain lasting more than 30 days were reported. No subjects withdrew due to an adverse event.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study is the first to investigate the use of Xenform<sup>® </sup>Matrix in vaginal reconstructive surgery among patients with POP. Significant improvement was maintained at 12 months utilizing both objective and subjective assessment tools, confirming the safety and efficacy of this material in vaginal surgery.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01244165</p
Preoperative Valsava leak point pressure may not predict outcome of mid-urethral slings: analysis from a randomized controlled trial of retropubic versus transobturator mid-urethral slings
A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set
INTRODUCTION: We assessed outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse and explored the relationships between outcome reporting quality with journal impact factor, year of publication, and methodological quality. METHODS: We searched the bibliographical databases from inception to October 2017. Two researchers independently selected studies and assessed study characteristics, methodological quality (Jadad criteria; range 1-5), and outcome reporting quality Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) criteria; range 1-6], and extracted relevant data. We used a multivariate linear regression to assess associations between outcome reporting quality and other variables. RESULTS: Eighty publications reporting data from 10,924 participants were included. Seventeen different surgical interventions were evaluated. One hundred different outcomes and 112 outcome measures were reported. Outcomes were inconsistently reported across trials; for example, 43 trials reported anatomical treatment success rates (12 outcome measures), 25 trials reported quality of life (15 outcome measures) and eight trials reported postoperative pain (seven outcome measures). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a relationship between outcome reporting quality with methodological quality (β = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (β = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (β = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (β = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (β = -0.013; P = 0.918). CONCLUSIONS: Anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse trials report many different outcomes and outcome measures and often neglect to report important safety outcomes. Developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set will help address these issues