ArticleGMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW2013
Reconstructive laparoscopic prolapse surgery to avoid mesh erosions.
Article in GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of the study is to examine the efficacy of the purely laparoscopic reconstructive management of cystocele and rectocele with mesh, to avoid the risk of erosion by the graft material, a well known complication in vaginal mesh surgery. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe performed a prospective, single-case, non-randomized study in 325 patients who received laparoscopic reconstructive management of pelvic organe prolaps with mesh. The study was conducted between January 2004 and December 2012 in a private clinic in India. The most common prolapse symptoms were reducible vaginal lump, urinary stress incontinence, constipation and flatus incontinence, sexual dysfunction and dypareunia. The degree e of the prolaps was staged according to POPQ system. The approach was purely laparoscopic and involved the use of polypropylene (Prolene) or polyurethane with activated regenerated cellulose coating (Parietex) mesh.
resultsThe mean age was 55 (30-80) years and the most of the patients were multiparous (272/325). The patients received a plastic correction of the rectocele only (138 cases), a cystocele and rectocele (187 cases) with mesh. 132 patients had a concomitant total hysterectomy; in 2 cases a laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy was performed and 190 patients had a laparoscopic colposuspension. The mean operation time was 82.2 (60-210) minutes. The mean follow up was 3.4 (3-5) years. Urinary retention developed in 1 case, which required a new laparoscopical intervention. Bladder injury, observed in the same case was in one session closed with absorbable suture. There were four recurrences of the rectocele, receiving a posterior vaginal colporrhaphy. Erosions of the mesh were not reported or documented.
conclusionThe pure laparoscopic reconstructive management of the cystocele and rectocele with mesh seems to be a safe and effective surgical procedure potentially avoiding the risk of mesh erosions.
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.