Surgery for recurrent dislocation of shoulder

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Vaginal mesh did not reduce the 5-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse compared with native tissue repair (10.4% vs 9.3%, p=0.70; adjusted HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.83-1.05), despite evidence from rando

Effect: null; HR 0.93; CI: 95%CI 0.83, 1.05

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.

Concurrent hysterectomy decreased the 2-year risk of surgery for recurrent prolapse in the native tissue group (4.4% vs 7.8%), and recent/concurrent sling decreased recurrence risk in both native tiss

Effect: improvement; 4.4% with concurrent hysterectomy vs 7.8% without (native tissue group); CI: 95%CI with hysterectomy 3.9-4.9; without hysterectomy 7.3-8.