Recent advances in pelvic floor repair
Mironska E., Chapple C., MacNeil S.
Narrative Review, published in F1000Res (2019) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- F1000Res (2019)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 31231510
- PMCID
- PMC6556996
- DOI
- 10.12688/f1000research.15046.1
- Citations
- 17
Abstract (original English)
Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are conditions which result in significant physical, mental and social consequences for women worldwide. The high rates of recurrence reported with primary repair for POP led to the use of synthetic mesh to augment repairs in both primary and secondary cases following failed previous POP repair. The widely reported, unacceptably high rates of complications associated with the use of synthetic, transvaginal mesh in pelvic floor repair have severely limited the treatment options that surgeons can offer. This article summarises the recent advances in pelvic floor repair, such as improved quantification and modelling of the biomechanics of the pelvic floor and the developing technology within the field of tissue engineering for treatment of SUI/POP, including biomaterials and cell-based therapies. Finally, we will discuss the issues surrounding the commercial introduction of synthetic mesh for use within the pelvic floor and what lessons can be learned for the future as well as the current guidance surrounding treatment for SUI/POP.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.