ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Outcomes of trocar-guided Gynemesh PS™ versus single-incision trocarless Polyform™ transvaginal mesh procedures.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence to justify retention of transvaginal mesh: comparison between laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and transvaginal Elevate™ mesh.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Retrospective comparison between the Prolift and Elevate anterior vaginal mesh procedures: 18-month clinical outcome.International urogynecology journal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of the study was to compare rates of success, mesh exposure, and surgical re-intervention after trocar-guided Gynemesh PS™ and trocarless Polyform™ transvaginal mesh procedures.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all transvaginal mesh procedures performed at our centers between January 2008 and May 2012. Multiple logistic regression models were used to explore the binary outcomes of objective and subjective success rates, as well as mesh exposure and re-intervention rates, between the two procedures after adjustment for patient's age, parity, body mass index, smoking status, previous hysterectomy, previous prolapse surgery, and follow-up time.
resultsWe included 103 transvaginal mesh procedures (47 trocar-guided Gynemesh PS™ and 56 trocarless Polyform™). In both groups, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scores were significantly improved after the procedure. Median follow-up was 340 days and interquartile range (IQR) 152-644. Objective success rates were 55.3 % (26/47) in the trocar group and 60.7 % (34/56) in the trocarless group (p = 0.9), whereas subjective success was 83.0 % (39/47) and 94.6 % (53/56), respectively (p = 0.1). The adjusted odds of developing mesh exposure were significantly less after trocarless transvaginal mesh procedures compared to trocar-guided ones [odds ratio (OR) 0.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.97]. Surgical re-interventions, aimed mostly at treating recurrent prolapse, mesh exposure, and latent stress urinary incontinence, were also significantly less frequent after trocarless procedures [5 patients (8.9 %) requiring re-intervention versus 15 (31.9 %), respectively, adjusted OR 0.15, 95 % CI 0.04-0.60].
conclusionsTrocar-guided Gynemesh PS™ and trocarless Polyform™ transvaginal mesh systems result in similar objective and subjective success rates. The newer Polyform™ mesh results in significantly fewer mesh exposures and surgical re-interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25056767What 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.