ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a long-term prospective study of 218 mesh kits from a single centre.
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 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes collected in female pelvic floor surgical procedure registries and databases: a scoping review.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Lightweight transvaginal mesh is associated with lower mesh exposure rates than heavyweight mesh.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- A long-term cohort study of surgery for recurrent prolapse comparing mesh augmented anterior repairs to anterior colporrhaphy.Gynecological surgery · 2018Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim was to assess the long-term surgical outcomes and complications in patients undergoing mesh-augmented vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsThis is a report of a prospective long-term follow-up experience from the Urogynaecological Service, Counties Manukau District Health Board (CMDHB), Auckland, New Zealand. The subjects were 158 symptomatic women undergoing mesh-augmented prolapse repair (218 kits, Feb 2005 to July 2013) using the Apogee and/or Perigee kits (with IntePro mesh until November 2009, and IntePro Lite mesh thereafter). A dedicated electronic database was used.
resultsThe median follow-up times were 138 and 105 weeks for the Apogee and Perigee kits, respectively; 56.6% and 48.8% of these kits, respectively, were inserted for recurrent prolapse. Cure rates for prolapse using mesh kits in patients with a history of native tissue POP repair in the same compartment were 90.91% for the anterior compartment (60 of 66) and 95.74% for the posterior compartment (45 of 47). The cumulative mesh extrusion/exposure rate was 15.8% of patients (11.5% of mesh kits) and was significantly higher with the Apogee kit than with the Perigee kit (P = 0.03). The rate of extrusion/exposure was significantly lower with IntePro Lite than with IntePro (P = 0.04 for Perigee and P = 0.0001 for Apogee). There was a significantly higher rate of extrusion/exposure with the Perigee kit in women with previous anterior compartment native tissue repair than with the Apogee kit in women with previous posterior compartment native tissue repair (21.2% versus 6.4%; P = 0.03). Only 8% of extrusions/exposures needed revision of the mesh. A set of significant predictors of mesh extrusion/exposure was identified. Overall success rates were 81.4% (110/135) for the Perigee kit and 74.7% (62/83) for the Apogee kit.
conclusionsThis is one of the longest prospective mesh follow-up studies to date from a single centre and highlights the need for continuing surveillance despite high overall success rates.
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.