ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Comparison of location of mesh placed transvaginally vs mesh placed abdominally at the time of sacrocolpopexy.
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The importance of a full thickness vaginal wall dissection. Comment on "Transvaginal mesh: a historical review and update of the current state of affairs in the United States".International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Response to Comment by Ting et al.: The importance of a full-thickness vaginal wall dissection.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe location of mesh placed at the time of abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) is hypothesized to be in the same location histologically as mesh placed via full-thickness vaginal dissection in a cadaver model.
methodsTen fresh frozen cadavers underwent mesh placement via traditional ASC. In the same specimen, a transvaginal mesh (TVM) procedure was performed, attempting a full-thickness dissection. A block section was excised from each area including full thickness of the vagina and bladder with the intervening mesh. This was analyzed by a blinded pathologist.
resultsAll cadavers underwent successful placement of both transabdominal mesh and TVM. Of the abdominally placed meshes, 6 were located between the vagina and bladder, whereas 3 were situated within the vaginal wall, with an average depth of 0.30 mm. Five of the vaginal mesh pieces were placed between the bladder and vagina, and 4 within the vaginal wall at a depth of 0.25 mm. One specimen placed vaginally was 0.05 mm within the serosa of the bladder. One specimen could not be interpreted, despite multiple cuts.
conclusionASC and full-thickness vaginal dissection result in histologically similar locations. Dissection for ASC may only result in the correct plane between the bladder and vagina in approximately 60 % of cases. We achieved full-thickness dissection for the transvaginal approach in 50 % of the cases, with one small penetration into the bladder serosa. Using a full-thickness dissection technique for TVM may be one way of reducing mesh exposure rates in those seen with ASC.
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.