ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Histopathology of excised midurethral sling mesh.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Late-presenting with a tumor-like mass giant cell reaction related to retropubic midurethral sling.Urology case reports · 2023Article
- Tobacco use, immunosuppressive, chronic pain, and psychiatric conditions are prevalent in women with symptomatic mesh complications undergoing mesh removal surgery.Investigative and clinical urology · 2020Article
- Managing female pelvic floor disorders: a medical device review and appraisal.Interface focus · 2019Review
- Host response to synthetic mesh in women with mesh complications.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective of this study was to compare the histological characteristics of pathological specimens of excised midurethral sling mesh and surrounding vaginal tissue in patients who presented preoperatively with pain and/or exposure of mesh to patients who underwent mesh excision for voiding dysfunction without pain and/or erosion.
methodsThis is a retrospective case-control study of women who underwent excision of midurethral sling mesh between 2008 and 2013. Three groups were identified: (1) voiding dysfunction without pain or exposure (control group), (2) pain and/or mesh exposure, and (3) voiding dysfunction with pain and/or mesh exposure. All original pathological specimens were rereviewed by one pathologist blinded to indication for excision and the previous pathology report. Degree of inflammation and fibrosis were recorded based on a 4-point scale along with the presence of giant cell reaction.
resultsA total of 130 subjects met inclusion criteria: 60 (46.2 %) with voiding dysfunction only, 21 (16.2 %) with pain/erosion, and 49 (37.7 %) with both pain/exposure and voiding dysfunction. The voiding dysfunction only group was found to have significantly higher levels of inflammation, median grade 2 (1-3), compared to the other two groups with a p value of 0.007. There were no statistical differences in fibrosis and giant cell reaction between the three groups.
conclusionsMidurethral sling mesh excised for voiding dysfunction demonstrates elevated levels of inflammation compared to mesh that is excised for pain and/or exposure. The vaginal tissue fibrosis and giant cell reaction are similar in patients who undergo mesh excision for voiding dysfunction and pain, and/or mesh exposure.
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.