ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Evaluation of the single-incision Elevate system to treat pelvic organ prolapse: follow-up from 15 to 45 months.
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.
- Evidence to justify retention of transvaginal mesh: comparison between laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and transvaginal Elevate™ mesh.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Efficacy and safety of Elevate® system on apical and anterior compartment prolapse repair with personal technique modification.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to assess the 2-year clinical outcomes of pelvic reconstructive surgery with the single-incision Elevate system (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA).
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted from November 2010 to August 2013, and included 210 patients with pelvic organ prolapse stage 3 or 4 who underwent pelvic reconstructive surgery with an Elevate system and were followed for 1 to 3 years postoperatively. Assessments included pre- and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage, Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) and multi-channel urodynamic examinations. Anatomical success was defined as postoperative POP-Q stage 0 or I.
resultsThe anatomical success rates were 95 % for the anterior vaginal wall, 99 % for the posterior vaginal wall and 94 % for the apical vaginal wall after a median 27 months of follow-up. POP-Q, UDI-6 and IIQ-7 scores, maximal flow rate and post-voiding residual urine all improved significantly after surgery. Complications included 1 case of internal bleeding, 4 cases of mesh exposure, 5 cases of recurrent prolapse that required salvage operations, and 3 cases of urine retention that required intermittent catheterization. There were no bladder or bowel injuries during surgery.
conclusionsPelvic reconstructive surgery with the Elevate system yielded good anatomical outcomes and symptom improvement after 2 years of follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25925486What 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.