ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2014
Morbidity and functional mid-term outcomes using Prolift pelvic floor repair systems.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Reoperation rate and outcomes following the placement of polypropylene mesh by the vaginal route for cystocele: very long-term follow-up.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- A clinical study on the trocar-guided mesh repair system for pelvic organ prolapse surgery.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe assess midterm morbidity and functional outcomes using the Prolift (Gynecare/Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) system and identify potential related risk factors. The Prolift mesh system to treat genital prolapse was introduced in 2005. It was withdrawn from the market in early 2013 after rising doubts about safety.
methodsOver a 7-year period, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 112 consecutive patients who underwent the Prolift procedure since 2006. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, anatomical and functional outcomes were recorded.
resultsThe median follow-up was 49.5 months (range: 16-85). The mean age was 64.7 ± 10.9 years (range: 40-86). Of the 112 patients, 74 patients had stage 3 (66.1%) and 8 patients had stage 4 (7.14%) vaginal prolapse. Prolift surgery was performed for pro-lapse recurrence for 26 patients (23.2%). Total mesh was used in 32 patients (29%), an isolated anterior mesh in 57 patients (51%) and an isolated posterior mesh in 23 patients (21%). Concomitant surgical procedures were performed for 44 patients (39.3%). Overall, 72% (18/25) of the complications were managed medically. We reported a failure rate of 8% (n = 9) occurring after a median follow-up of 9.5 months (range: 1-45). Among the 64 patients who had preoperative sexual activity (57.1%), de novo dyspareunia occurred in 9 patients (16.07%). We extracted predictive factors concerning failure, complications and sexuality.
conclusionDespite its market withdrawal, the Prolift system was associated with good midterm anatomic outcomes and few severe complications. Long-term follow-up data are still lacking, but surgeons and patients may be reassured.
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.