ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2013
Operation for recurrent cystocele with anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh: patient reported outcomes.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel suturing technique for natural tissue repair in cystocele treatment.BMC women's health · 2024Observational
- Repair of recurrent rectocele with posterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable polypropylene mesh-patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Decisions to use surgical mesh in operations for pelvic organ prolapse: a question of geography?International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Impact of surgeon experience on routine prolapse operations.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
- Prosthetic surgery versus native tissue repair of cystocele: literature review.Updates in surgery · 2016Review
- Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion.International urogynecology journal · 2016Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to compare patient reported outcomes and complications after repair of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse in routine health care settings using standard anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh.
methodsThe study is based on prospective data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery. 286 women were operated on for recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse in 2008-2010; 157 women had an anterior colporrhaphy and 129 were operated on with a non-absorbable mesh. Pre-, and perioperative data were collected from doctors and patients. Patient reported outcomes were evaluated 2 months and 12 months after the operation.
resultsAfter 12 months, the odds ratio (OR) of patient reported cure was 2.90 (1.34-6.31) after mesh implants compared with anterior colporrhaphy. Both patient- and doctor-reported complications were found more often in the mesh group. However, no differences in serious complications were found. Thus, an organ lesion was found in 2.3% after mesh implant compared with 2.5% after anterior colporrhaphy (p = 0.58). Two patients in the mesh group (1.2%) were re-operated compared with 1 patient (0.6%) in the anterior colporrhaphy group (p = 0.58). The infection rate was higher after mesh (8.5%) than after anterior colporrhaphy (2.5%; OR 3.19 ; 1.07-14.25).
conclusionImplantation of synthetic mesh during operation for recurrent cystocele more than doubled the cure rate, whereas no differences in serious complications were found between the groups. However, mesh increased the risk of infection.
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.