Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2013
Lower exposure rates of partially absorbable mesh compared to nonabsorbable mesh for cystocele treatment: 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial.
Trial report 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 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set.International urogynecology journal · 2018Pooled it
- Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Partially Absorbable Mesh (SERATOMJournal of menopausal medicine · 2025Article
- The international discussion and the new regulations concerning transvaginal mesh implants in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2020Review
- 3D reconstruction of MR-visible FeNeurourology and urodynamics · 2019Article
- The minimal important difference of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Quality of Life, Sexuality, Anatomical Results and Side-effects of Implantation of an Alloplastic Mesh for Cystocele Correction at Follow-up after 36 Months.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2017Article
- MRI visible FeInternational urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2016Article
- Vaginal Approaches Using Synthetic Mesh to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Annals of coloproctology · 2016Review
- Anatomical Position of Four Different Transobturator Mesh Implants for Female Anterior Prolapse Repair.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisIn surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) the use of alloplastic meshes has become common. Among possible complications, mesh exposure is the most frequent problem. It is hypothesized that exposure rates are correlated to mesh weight and the amount of foreign material. Therefore, we conducted a prospective open-label randomized multicenter trial comparing a conventional polypropylene mesh (PP) with a partially absorbable polypropylene mesh (PA) for cystocele treatment.
methodsA total of 200 patients with POP > stage I were randomized either to a conventional or a partially absorbable mesh. Exposure rates were observed after 3, 12, and 36 months and correlated to mesh material, patient characteristics, intraoperative data, and treatment centers. Furthermore, management of mesh exposure, satisfaction with surgery, and postoperative pain were evaluated.
resultsAt all follow-up intervals mesh exposure rate was smaller in the group of the partially absorbable mesh (3 months PP 11.3 % vs PA 3.2 %, p=0.0492; 12 months 6.6 % vs 6.3 %; 36 months 7.5 % vs 3.4 %). Over the course of time, mesh exposure was observed in 27 patients, with surgical intervention necessary in 11 patients. The rate of recurrent POP was higher (p>0.05) in patients with the partially absorbable mesh. The majority of patients were fully satisfied with the operation (52.8 %) and had no pelvic floor pain (67.5 %).
conclusionIn this prospective, randomized trial with a long-term follow-up there was a low exposure rate in both treatment groups with a trend toward fewer exposures in the group of the partially absorbable mesh.
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.