Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical options for the management of anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort study results from the PROSPECT Study
Glazener C, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper K, Freeman R, Smith A, Hagen S, Montgomery I, Kilonzo M, Boyers D, McDonald A, McPherson G, MacLennan G & Norrie J
Record ID 32010000403
English
Authors' objectives:
To compare synthetic non-absorbable mesh inlay, biological graft and mesh kit with a standard repair in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse effects, quality of life (QoL), costs and cost-effectiveness.
Authors' recommendations:
In women who were having primary repairs, there was evidence of no benefit from the use of mesh inlay or biological graft compared with standard repair in terms of efficacy, QoL or adverse effects (other than mesh complications) in the short term. The Secondary trials were too small to provide conclusive results.
Details
Project Status:
Completed
Year Published:
2017
URL for published report:
https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta20950/#/abstract
English language abstract:
An English language summary is available
Publication Type:
Not Assigned
Country:
England, United Kingdom
MeSH Terms
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Urologic Surgical Procedures
- Uterine Prolapse
- Vagina
Contact
Organisation Name:
NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
Contact Address:
NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Contact Name:
journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Contact Email:
journals.library@nihr.ac.uk
Copyright:
<p>2010 Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO</p>
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.