Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25023238›Full record

ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2014

[Complication management in prolapse and incontinence surgery].

C Hampel, F Roos, A Neisius, J W Thüroff, C Thomas

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

5 authors.

C HampelUrologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland, jasmin.wrogemann@unimedizin-mainz.de.
F Roos
A Neisius
J W Thüroff
C Thomas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tension-free alloplastic slings (TFAS) have revolutionized surgery for female stress urinary incontinence for more than 20 years. The procedure is easy to perform, minimally invasive with a short operating time in an outpatient setting and has proven efficacy comparable to retropubic colposuspension. The frequency of surgery for female stress incontinence has tripled within one decade which has to have an impact on the number of complications. In contrast, sacrocolpopexy has remained the gold standard in urological prolapse surgery as none of the new techniques has reached similar efficacy or safety; however, possible complications have to be named and their causes have to be understood to maintain the highest quality of care in the future. Possible complications of TFAS are potentially underestimated with respect to prevalence and manageability. Possible complications of prolapse and incontinence surgery are presented and the underlying causes are identified. Knowledge of the pathophysiology and the cause of complications together with the results of a postoperative diagnostic work-up, allow complication management to be tailored to each individual patient. To prevent complications all conservative treatment options should have been tried preoperatively and a complete evaluation (including urodynamics) should have been carried out for every patient. Postoperative urodynamics may help to document treatment success and to identify and quantify complications.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansPelvic Organ ProlapsePostoperative ComplicationsSuburethral SlingsUrinary IncontinenceUrinary Incontinence, StressUrologic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.