Abstract
There are numerous randomized controlled trials examining biological materials in urogynecologic surgery. For prolapse surgery, the addition of a biological graft adds no benefit compared with native tissue repairs for rectocele repair. Conflicting data exist regarding cystocele repair. Synthetic mesh repairs provide superior anatomical support for sacral colpopexy and cystocele repair compared with biologic grafts. However, biological and synthetic mesh slings have equivalent success rates for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Contrary to prior assumptions that biologic grafts add tissue strength without graft-related complications, there appears to be no benefit to the use of biological materials for prolapse and incontinence surgery.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
