Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2012
A prospective comparison of two commercial mesh kits in the management of anterior vaginal prolapse.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A retrospective comparison of two vaginal mesh kits in the management of anterior and apical vaginal prolapse: long-term results for apical fixation and quality of life.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
- Ultrasound imaging in urogynecology - state of the art 2016.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2016Article
- Retrospective comparison between the Prolift and Elevate anterior vaginal mesh procedures: 18-month clinical outcome.International urogynecology journal · 2015Article
- Anterior colporrhaphy: why surgeon performance is paramount.International urogynecology journal · 2014Article
- Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and bladder function.International urogynecology journal · 2013Review
- Comparison of two trocar-guided trans-vaginal mesh systems for repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study.International urogynecology journal · 2013Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal versus vaginal prolapse surgery with mesh.International urogynecology journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisVaginal mesh kits are increasingly used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to determine similarity of outcomes of the Anterior Prolift with Perigee systems for anterior compartment prolapse.
methodsConsecutive women undergoing Perigee or Anterior Prolift for symptomatic stage 2 or greater anterior vaginal prolapse were prospectively evaluated. Main outcome measures included objective and subjective success rates, perioperative outcomes, patient satisfaction, and complications.
resultsOne hundred and six women (Prolift, 52; Perigee, 54) completed questionnaires, and 91 (Prolift, 46; Perigee, 45) were examined postoperatively. At follow-up (Prolift: median, 11.0; range, 5-23 months; Perigee: median, 11.5; range, 6 - 23 months), objective success rates (Prolift, 89%; Perigee, 80%; p = 0.23), subjective success rates (Prolift, 94%; Perigee, 96%; p=0.62), mean ± SD patient satisfaction (Prolift, 8.2 ± 2.0; Perigee, 8.2 ± 1.8; p = 0.91), and complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups.
conclusionsThe Anterior Prolift was found to not differ significantly from Perigee at 11 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21975472What 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.