ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2013
Comparison of two trocar-guided trans-vaginal mesh systems for repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort 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.
- Partially absorbable mesh or native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.International urogynecology journal · 2019Trial
- Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment.International urogynecology journal · 2015Trial
- Long-term outcome (5-10 years) after non absorbable mesh insertion compared to partially absorbable mesh insertion for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to compare failure and complication rates in patients who underwent a trocar-guided vaginal mesh repair with either a non-absorbable or a partially absorbable mesh.
methodsRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive women undergoing either non-absorbable or partially absorbable mesh for symptomatic stage 2 prolapse or higher were evaluated at 12 months. Outcome measures included objective and subjective failure rates, patient's satisfaction, complications and perioperative outcomes.
resultsFive hundred and sixty-nine women (347 with non-absorbable mesh, 222 with partially absorbable mesh) were included. Failure rates were similar in the two groups; the re-operation rate in the untreated compartments was higher in the non-absorbable mesh group compared with the partially absorbable mesh group (5% vs 1%). Mesh exposure rate in the non-absorbable mesh group was 12% and in the partially absorbable mesh group it was 5%. Other complication and patient satisfaction rates were similar.
conclusionsNon-absorbable and partially absorbable mesh demonstrated similar outcome rates at 12 months. The risk of reoperation was lower for partially absorbable mesh. The mesh exposure rate was significantly lower for the partially absorbable mesh group compared with the non-absorbable mesh group.
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.