ArticleBioMed research international2013
Introducing a method of in vitro testing of different anchoring systems used for female incontinence and prolapse surgery.
Article in BioMed research international, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Using Minimally Invasive Anchorage.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2019Article
- Ultrasonography and clinical outcomes following anti-incontinence procedures (Monarc vs MiniArc): A 3-year post-operative review.PloS one · 2018Article
- Introducing a true minimally invasive meshless and dissectionless anchoring system for pelvic organ prolapse repair.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
- Minimally invasive treatment of female stress urinary incontinence with the adjustable single-incision sling system (AJUST ™) in an elderly and overweight population.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Safety and short term outcomes of a new truly minimallyinvasive mesh-less and dissection-less anchoring system for pelvic organ prolapse apical 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo develop a method for in vitro testing to compare different intracorporeal anchoring systems (AS) used, for example, in single-incision slings or vaginal meshes. Intracorporeal fixation needs reliable anchorage systems, which keep the implant in the operative and early postoperative phase in place. Up to now, the impact of the design of current anchor systems and their capability to provide sufficient retention forces is not known.
methodsFour AS ("PelFix", "Surelift", "TFS", and "MiniArc") were evaluated in an animal model and a ballistic gelatine model with pull-out tests. We performed ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni. Results were presented as mean values whereby a significance level of <0.05 was considered significant.
resultsThe four systems showed significantly different pull-out forces. Depending on mesh structure, size, and form of the AS, mechanical strain resulted in deformation with local peak stresses. Under the condition of form stability, relative differences of pull-out forces did not change in different tissues.
conclusionsReliable testing of different AS in their ability to keep mesh implants in place can be done in animal models and in especially designed ballistic gelatine. These methods of testing will help to modify AS in novel pelvic floor implants.
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.