Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22526180›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2012

[Prolapse surgery. With abdominal or vaginal meshes?].

H Loertzer, P Schneider, P Thelen, R H Ringert, A Strauß

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [Stress incontinence in elderly women].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

H LoertzerUrologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Straße 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland. hagen.loertzer@med.uni-goettingen.de
P Schneider
P Thelen
R H Ringert
A Strauß

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In prolapse surgery several surgical techniques are available. The different open, laparoscopic and vaginal approaches are distinguished by distinct success and relapse rates and operation-specific complications. A safe and optimal therapeutic pelvic floor surgery should be based on the three support levels according to DeLancy and be individually adjusted for every patient. The vaginal approach may be used for all kinds of female genital prolapse and is a comparatively less invasive technique with a short time of convalescence. Apart from stress incontinence there is no need for synthetic meshes in primary approaches and excellent results with low complication and relapse rates can be achieved. An uncritical application of synthetic material is to be avoided in vaginal repair at all times. Abdominal surgical techniques, both open and laparoscopic, present their strengths in the therapeutic approach to level 1 defects or stress incontinence. They provide excellent functional and anatomical corrections and low relapse rates. Abdominally inserted meshes have lower complication rates than vaginal ones.

Indexed as

Surgical MeshAbdomenFemaleHumansProsthesis ImplantationUterine ProlapseVagina

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.