Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25973425›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2015

Management of Mesh Complications after SUI and POP Repair: Review and Analysis of the Current Literature.

D Barski, D Y Deng

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Platelet-Rich Plasma and Fractional COInternational urogynecology journal · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A modified laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for apical and anterior pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  12. Laparoscopic excision and re-attachment of sacrocolpopexy mesh.International urogynecology journal · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

D BarskiDepartment of Urology, Lukas Hospital, Preussenstrasse 84, 41464 Neuss, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8611-8250
D Y DengDepartment of Urology, University of California, 400 Parnassus Avenue A633, P.O. Box 0738, San Francisco, CA 94143-0738, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the surgical treatment concepts for the complications related to the implantation of mesh material for urogynecological indications. MATERIALS AND

methodsA review of the current literature on PubMed was performed.

resultsOnly retrospective studies were detected. The rate of mesh-related complications is about 15-25% and mesh erosion is up to 10% for POP and SUI repair. Mesh explantation is necessary in about 1-2% of patients due to complications. The initial approach appears to be an early surgical treatment with partial or complete mesh resection. Vaginal and endoscopic access for mesh resection is favored. Prior to recurrent surgeries, a careful examination and planning for the operation strategy are crucial.

conclusionsThe data on the management of mesh complication is scarce. Revisions should be performed by an experienced surgeon and a proper follow-up with prospective documentation is essential for a good outcome.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansPelvic Organ ProlapseSurgical Mesh

Identifiers

PMID25973425
PMCPMC4418012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.