ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2013
Comparing the risk of urethrolysis for the treatment of voiding dysfunction between two retropubic mesh slings: a case-control study.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety considerations for synthetic sling surgery.Nature reviews. Urology · 2015Review
- Transvaginal retropubic sling systems: efficacy and patient acceptability.International journal of women's health · 2015Review
- A sequential comparison of postoperative voiding function between two different transobturator sling procedures.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du CanadaArticle
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
introduction and hypothesisLong-term outcome data exist with Gynecare TVT tension-free support for incontinence (TVT), yet few comparisons have been made to newer retropubic sling delivery systems, especially with regards to urethrolysis for postoperative voiding dysfunction. Our objective was to compare the odds of urethrolysis for the treatment of voiding dysfunction between two retropubic sling systems.
methodsWe performed a case-control study comparing the risk of urethrolysis between TVT versus the Bard ALIGN Urethral Support System (Bard Align). We identified surgical procedures described as urethrolysis, sling revision, loosening, or lysis performed for the treatment of voiding dysfunction by urogynecologists at Duke University between January 2007 and June 2011. Slings placed at outside institutions were excluded. Controls were matched for both concomitant prolapse procedures and academic year.
resultsOf 818 total slings placed during the study period, there were 28 (3.4 %) urethrolysis cases, which were matched to 84 controls. Among urethrolysis cases, 6/28 (21.4 %) had received TVT, while 22/28 (78.6 %) had received Bard Align slings. Of the 84 matched controls, 30/84 (35.7 %) had undergone TVT and 54/84 (64.3 %) had undergone Bard Align. There was no significant difference in the odds of urethrolysis following the use of TVT or Bard Align [odds ratio (OR) 2.00, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.74-5.50]. In a conditional logistic regression model, which adjusted for age, body mass index, prior anti-incontinence or prolapse surgery, and postvoid residual, there remained no significant difference in odds of urethrolysis between the two sling types (OR 1.50, 95 % CI 0.42-5.33).
conclusionsDespite different instrument designs, there was no significant difference in the risk of urethrolysis following TVT or Bard Align retropubic sling.
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.