The use of biological materials in urogynecologic reconstruction: a systematic review.

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.