Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23240801›Full record

ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2013

Deterioration in biomechanical properties of the vagina following implantation of a high-stiffness prolapse mesh.

A Feola, S Abramowitch, Z Jallah, S Stein, W Barone, S Palcsey, P Moalli

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 147 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A preliminaryJournal of biomaterials applications · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A FeolaMusculoskeletal Research Center, Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
S AbramowitchMusculoskeletal Research Center, Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Z JallahMusculoskeletal Research Center, Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
S SteinDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Women's Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
W BaroneMusculoskeletal Research Center, Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
S PalcseyDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Women's Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
P MoalliDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Women's Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · USMagee-Womens Research Institute · US

Funding

Comprehensive Evaluation of Prolapse Meshes by an Interdisciplinary Research TeamR01HD061811 · NICHD · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI MOALLI, PAMELA A. · 2009 to 2013
$2.1M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD061811NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD061811-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo define the impact of prolapse mesh on the biomechanical properties of the vagina by comparing the prototype Gynemesh PS (Ethicon) to two new-generation lower stiffness meshes, SmartMesh (Coloplast) and UltraPro (Ethicon).

designA study employing a nonhuman primate model.

settingUniversity of Pittsburgh, PA, USA. POPULATION: Forty-five parous rhesus macaques.

methodsMeshes were implanted via sacrocolpopexy after hysterectomy and compared with sham. Because its stiffness is highly directional, UltraPro was implanted in two directions: UltraPro Perpendicular (less stiff) and UltraPro Parallel (more stiff), with the indicated direction referring to the position of the blue orientation lines relative to the longitudinal axis of the vagina. The mesh-vaginal complex (MVC) was excised in toto after 3 months.

main outcome measuresActive mechanical properties were quantified as the contractile force generated in the presence of 120 mmol/l KCl. Passive mechanical properties (a tissue's ability to resist an applied force) were measured using a multiaxial protocol.

resultsVaginal contractility decreased by 80% following implantation with the Gynemesh PS (P = 0.001), 48% after SmartMesh (P = 0.001), 68% after UltraPro Parallel (P = 0.001) and was highly variable after UltraPro Perpendicular (P = 0.16). The tissue contribution to the passive mechanical behaviour of the MVC was drastically reduced for Gynemesh PS (P = 0.003), but not for SmartMesh (P = 0.9) or UltraPro independent of the direction of implantation (P = 0.68 and P = 0.66, respectively).

conclusionsDeterioration of the mechanical properties of the vagina was highest following implantation with the stiffest mesh, Gynemesh PS. Such a decrease associated with implantation of a device of increased stiffness is consistent with findings from other systems employing prostheses for support.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresMacaca mulattaPolypropylenesSurgical MeshVaginaPolypropylenes

Identifiers

PMID23240801
PMCPMC3530836
OpenAlexW2108340448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.