Center for Pelvic Health and Reconstructive Surgery, The Arthur Smith Institute for Urology, Hofstra North Shore-Long Island Jewish School of Medicine, 450 Lakeville Road, Suite M41, New Hyde Park, NY 11042, USA.
Curr Urol Rep. 2011 Oct;12(5):323-6. doi: 10.1007/s11934-011-0205-1.
The use of synthetic mesh for the management of pelvic organ prolapse has been embroiled in a contentious debate over the past decade, with only more partisanship among physicians strictly against its use versus those pelvic surgeons who believe it to be a useful tool in their armamentarium. At the heart of the controversy lies the concern, by its detractors, for complications related to mesh use outweighing the as yet not rigorously tested benefit of augmenting repairs with mesh. This article discusses, in detail, the current literature supporting the use of mesh in the management of pelvic organ prolapse repair. The rising concern for complications, both simple and complex, will be addressed. This review aims to narrow the divide between physicians and to address their discordant beliefs by objectively reporting the most up-to-date data on biologic and synthetic mesh use in pelvic organ prolapse repair.
在过去的十年中，合成网片在治疗盆腔器官脱垂中的应用引发了一场激烈的争论，只有更多的医生坚决反对使用合成网片，而另一些盆腔外科医生则认为它是他们手中有用的工具。争议的核心是，其反对者担心与网片使用相关的并发症超过了用网片增强修复的尚未经过严格测试的益处。本文详细讨论了目前支持在盆腔器官脱垂修复中使用网片的文献。将讨论对简单和复杂并发症的日益关注。本综述旨在缩小医生之间的分歧，并通过客观报告关于生物和合成网片在盆腔器官脱垂修复中的最新数据来解决他们的分歧信念。
