ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2015
Secondary surgery after vaginal prolapse repair with mesh is more common for stress incontinence and voiding dysfunction than for mesh problems or prolapse recurrence.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2015. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Additional treatments, satisfaction, symptoms and quality of life in women 1 year after vaginal and abdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair.International urology and nephrology · 2018Article
- Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh.Current urology reports · 2016Review
- Decellularized dermal strip as a suburethral sling in a rat model of stress urinary incontinence.International urology and nephrology · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the need for secondary surgical procedures after transvaginal prolapse repair with mesh.
methodsWomen that had prolapse repair (Prolift(®) or Elevate(®)) were reviewed for reoperation and clinical/demographic data such as prior prolapse repair, prolapse grade, operative details, length of stay (LOS) and time to reoperation. Pearson's Chi-square, Fisher's exact tests and Wilcoxon rank tests were used.
results77/335 women (23%) had 100 additional procedures. Median (range) time to reoperation was 51 (5-1168) days: four (1%) had primary prolapse surgery at a different site, three (1%) repeat prolapse repair from the same site, 23 (7%) surgery for complications and 50 (15%) had stress urinary incontinence (SUI)/sling-related procedures. When no reoperation versus reoperation groups were compared, mean LOS (1.8 vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.044) and follow-up (228 vs. 354 days; p = 0.002) were longer in the reoperations group; postoperative hemoglobin was lower (10.8 vs. 10.4; p = 0.031). Patients with a prolapse reoperation were 10 years younger (67 vs. 57 years; p = 0.027) than patients that either had a reoperation for other reasons or had no reoperations. Patients with concomitant sling and persistent SUI requiring repeat SUI surgery were older (mean 72 vs. 66 years; p = 0.038), had prior prolapse repair (53 vs. 27%; p = 0.017) and had anterior compartment mesh (84 vs. 56%; p = 0.037); median operative times (78 vs. 104 min; p = 0.008) and mean LOS were shorter (median 1.6 vs. 1.9 days; p = 0.045). For patients without concomitant sling, no demographic or perioperative differences were found between those that did (n = 10) and did not (n = 86) develop de novo SUI that required reoperation.
conclusionsMost reoperations were for sling management and SUI; few were for mesh complications or prolapse recurrence.
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.