Table 1 Subjective outcomes
Study (1st author year) | Intervention | Subjective outcomes assessment tool | Results | F/U (y) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Maher13 | ASC (polypropylene) vs SSF | SUDI, IIQ, Modified sexual function questionnaires, SF-36, Patient satisfaction (VAS 0–100) | Subjective success rate: 94% (43/46) vs 91% (39/43), p = 0.19 Patient satisfaction: 85% (39/46) vs 81% (35/43), p = 0.78 | 2 |
Culligan14 | ASC (fascia lata vs polypropylene) | Not defined | Not defined | 1 |
Tate17 | ASC (fascia lata vs polypropylene) | Symptoms of prolapse, or bulge | Clinical (objective and subjective) success: 90% (26/29) vs 97% (28/29), p = 0.61 Of failures by objective definition, 77% were asymptomatic, suggesting anatomical failures often not clinically relevanta | 5 |
Maher15 | LSC vs TVM | APFQ, P-QOL, Patient satisfaction (VAS 0–100) | Symptomatic prolapse: 2% (1/53) vs. 7% (4/55), p = 0.18 Patient satisfaction: 87 ± 21 vs 79 ± 20, p = 0.002 | 2 |
Paraiso16 | LSC vs RSC | PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12, EG-5D, Activity Assessment Scale | Improvement without differences Robotic group reported higher pain scores at rest and with activity weeks 3–5 (VAS, p = 0.02–0.04) and required longer NSAID use (median 20 vs 11 days, p < 0.005)a | 1 |
Halaska18 | SSF vs TVM | UIQ, CRAIQ, POPIQ, PISQ short | Improvement without differences CRAIQ (bowel symptoms) improved more in mesh group (p < 0.05)a | 1 |
Freeman 2013 (LAS)19 | ASC vs LSC | PGI-I, P-QOL, SF-36 | PGI-I “very much better”, “much better” 90% vs 80% P-QOL “prolapse impact” No difference | 1 |
Svabik20 | SSF vs TVM | POPDI, UDI, CRADI, PISQ-12, ICIQ-SF | Improvement without differences De novo SUI higher after Prolift (13 vs 3 cases, p = 0.023)a | 1 |
Coolen21 | ASC vs LSC | UDI, DDI, IIQ, PGI-I | Composite outcome of success: 89.2% (33/37) vs 83.8% (31/37) PGI-I “very much better”, “much better” 74% (20/27) vs 71% (22/31), p = 0.563 No difference | 1 |
Ow22 | VEULS with anterior mesh vs ASC | PFDI-20, POPDI, UDI, CRADI, PISQ, bothersome bulge | Bothersome bulge 26.5% (9/34) vs 8.6% (3/35), p = 0.06 No difference | 4 |
Ferrando23 | R/LSC (Dual vs Y mesh) | Bulge | 8% (2/27) vs 4% (1/28), p = 0.55 | 0.5 |
Ferrando26 | R/LSC (Dual vs Y mesh) | PFDI-20, POPDI, CRADI, UDI, Bulge | Subjective recurrence: 8.3% (2/24) vs 10.0% (2/20), p = 0.90 No difference | 2 |
Galad24 | TVM vs SSF | Patient satisfaction (VAS 0–100), IQoL | Quality of life : 91% (42/46) vs 87% (39/45), p = 0.898 No difference | 3 |
Hemming25 | Vaginal vs Abdominal | POP-SS, QoL, EQ-5D, ICIQ | No difference | 1 |
van Oudheusden 2023 (SALTO)27 | LSC vs ASC | UDI, DDI, IIQ, PGI-I, PISQ | Clinical (objective and subjective) outcomes: 78.6% (11/14) vs 84.6% (11/13), p = 0.686 PGI-I “very much better”, “much better” 57.9% (11/19) vs 58.8% (10/17), p = 0.955 No difference | 9 |
van Oudheusden 2023 (SALTO-2)28 | LSC vs SSF | UDI, DDI, IIQ, PGI-I, PISQ, bulge | Clinical (objective and subjective) outcomes: 89.3% (25/28) vs 86.2% (25/29), p = 0.810 Bothersome bulge 10.3% (3/29) vs 10.0% (3/30), p = 1.000 PGI-I “satisfaction” 78.6% (22/28) vs 80.0% (24/30), p = 0.778 No difference | 1 |
Menefee29 | NTR vs SC vs TVM | PFDI, POPDI, UDI, CRADI, PFIQ, UIQ, CRAIQ, PISQ-IR, BIPOP, FAS, SF-12 | Symptomatic failure 17/123 vs 17/121 vs 11/115 PFDI change −73.1 (−79.3 to −66.9) vs −84.6 (−90.8 to −78.4) vs −85.6 (−91.8 to −79.3), p = 0.008b UDI (p = 0.03), CRADI (p = 0.08), CRAIQ (p = 0.04)b SF-12 mental component p = 0.03b SC = TVM > NTR | 3 |
Andy30 | NTR vs SC vs TVM | BIPOP, PISQ-IR | No difference | 3 |
