ArticleGMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW2014
Can we still have a clear conscience, routinely offering vaginal mesh operations in plastic and reconstructive surgery of the pelvic organ prolapse?
Article in GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acellular Dermal Matrices as an New Alternative for Treatment in Reproductive Organ Static Disorders: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince many years, plastic and reconstructive surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has been performed by vaginal mesh surgery. Although warnings from the scientific societies and the FDA have been published, vaginal mesh surgery still remains a routine treatment of genital prolapse in the female.
backgroundMany third-degree referral centres in operative gynaecology found a high number of severe complications after mesh repair. Compared to the minor complications known from the classical non-mesh plastic and reconstructive surgery, there is a clear difference concerning the severity of complications. Additionally, mesh vaginal surgery was implemented in gynaecological prolapse operations because of the relatively high recurrence rate in classical vaginal surgery without implants; no major studies however have revealed a lower long-term recurrence rate with mesh vaginal techniques. DISCUSSION: As the recurrence rate could not be lowered evaluating the meta-analysis of the published scientific studies, the higher rate of severe complications should emphasise the fact that the risk of vaginal mesh surgery is too high for these techniques to be implemented in the surgical work of a routine gynaecological operative department.
conclusionVaginal mesh surgery can no longer be a primary plastic and reconstructive therapy of pelvic organ prolapse in a routine gynaecological operative setting and department, due to the high rate of severe complications.
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.