ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2009
[Vaginal pelvic repair. Always with mesh or not?].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Pelvic floor reconstruction-An interdisciplinary overview].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Positive effects of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on anterior lateral defects and stress urinary incontinence.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- [Stress incontinence in elderly women].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2013Article
- [Prolapse surgery. With abdominal or vaginal meshes?].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several surgical methods are possible when aiming at reconstruction of pelvic organ prolapse in women, and the experienced surgeon implements the knowledge gained from open, laparoscopic, and vaginal techniques. These feature different rates of success and relapse as well as different complication risks. Because of the accumulating morbidity of aging patients, there is a search for a safe minimally invasive technique. With the advent of synthetic meshes, surgeons have used them frequently and often uncritically for reconstruction of the female pelvic floor. In these cases the vaginal approach is preferred as opposed to alternative techniques, as it is less invasive and allows for better convalescence. Furthermore, this approach leads to low complication and relapse rates even when synthetic meshes are omitted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.