Quoi de neuf depuis le rapport de la HAS ? Bilan de deux ans d’évaluation des implants de renfort prothétique dans le traitement des prolapsus par voie vaginale

The French Health Authorities' (HAS) report of November 2006 concluded that the use of mesh at the time of transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) should be limited to clinical research. This review intends to analyse and comment the recent data on this topic. A review on PubMed, on a personal database and actualisation until May 2008 has been performed choosing French or English language series concerning prolapse surgery with mesh disposed by the vaginal route. It includes six randomised controlled trials comparing transvaginal repair of POP with or without mesh: four about cystocele, one about rectocele and one about apical prolapse. Both surgical techniques and recurrence criteria are poorly standardised. The four randomised trials focusing on cystocele repair support the anatomical superiority of techniques using mesh, with similar functional results with or without mesh reinforcement. In the other indications, the results remain unclear or controversial. According to the randomised trials, the complications rate, except mesh exposure, is similar with and without mesh. However there are some specific complications when using mesh, such as mesh infection, mesh exposure or shrinkage and visceral extrusion. We recommend using vaginal reinforcement mesh with specific care in selected patients and we suggest some guidelines to be proposed for consensus at concerned French scientific societies.     

Les stimulations ovariennes modérées pour fécondation in vitro constituent-elles un réel progrès en assistance médicale à la procréation ?

Growing evidence indicates that mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro-fertilization-embryo transfer may be an interesting approach to reduce the incidence and severity of complications, the number of treatment days, cost, patient discomfort and number of patient drop-outs. However, the heterogeneity of FSH-sensitive follicles, presumably requires multiple follicular growth to improve oocyte-embryo selection. In addition, whether the acceptability probably is similar between standard ovarian stimulation and mild stimulation, per-treatment pregnancy rates with conventional stimulation is superior to mild stimulation in unselected populations. Hence, some specific indications tend to emerge such as alterations of the ovarian follicular reserve in women of less than 38 years, bad embryo qualities and implantation failure after conventional stimulation, patients with previous history of hyperstimulation syndrome or contraindications to hyperoestrogenia (estrogeno-related cancers and thromboembolic diseases). However, no randomized trials have ever been performed to compare the results of mild versus conventional stimulation in young patients and good responders. Therefore, there is insufficient scientific evidence to shift from standard stimulation to mild stimulation for all patients. Cultural standards have to be considered in the choice of the type of stimulation.