Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26690360›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2016

The IUGA/ICS classification of synthetic mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a multicenter study.

John R Miklos, Orawee Chinthakanan, Robert D Moore, Gretchen K Mitchell, Sheena Favors, Deborah R Karp, Gina M Northington, Gladys M Nogueiras, G Willy Davila

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. [Vaginal pelvic floor reconstruction techniques].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Difference of opinion - Are syntetic slings safe? Opinion: No.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

John R MiklosInternational Urogynecology Associates, Atlanta, GA and Beverly Hills, CA, USA.
Orawee ChinthakananInternational Urogynecology Associates, Atlanta, GA and Beverly Hills, CA, USA. orawee_pui@yahoo.com.
Robert D MooreInternational Urogynecology Associates, Atlanta, GA and Beverly Hills, CA, USA.
Gretchen K MitchellInternational Urogynecology Associates, Atlanta, GA and Beverly Hills, CA, USA.
Sheena FavorsInternational Urogynecology Associates, Atlanta, GA and Beverly Hills, CA, USA.
Deborah R KarpDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Gina M NorthingtonDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Gladys M NogueirasCleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
G Willy DavilaCleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
Urology Associates · USCleveland Clinic Florida · USEmory University · USInstitute for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to report patterns of sling and transvaginal mesh-related complications using the IUGA/ICS classification of prosthesis-related complications.

methodsThis was a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent surgical removal of sling, transvaginal mesh, and sacrocolpopexy for mesh-related complications from 2011 to 2013 at three tertiary referral centers. The International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) classification system was utilized.

resultsWe identified 445 patients with mesh complications, 506 pieces of synthetic mesh were removed, and 587 prostheses-related complications were classified. 3.7 % of patients had viscus organ penetration or vaginal exposure as their presenting chief complaint and 59.7 % were classified as not having any vaginal epithelial separation or category 1. The most common category was spontaneous pain (1Be: 32.5 %) followed by dyspareunia (1Bc: 14.7 %). The sling group was 20 % more likely to have pain compared with the pelvic organ prolapse (POP) mesh group (OR 1.2, 95 % CI 0.8-1.6). The most commonly affected site (S2) was away from the suture line (49 %). Compared with the sling group, the POP group had a higher rate of mesh exposure, which mostly occurred at the suture line area. The majority of patients presented with mesh-related complications more than 1 year post-insertion (T4; average 3.68 ± 2.47 years).

conclusionSurgeons should be aware that patients with vaginal mesh complications routinely exhibit complications more than 1 year after the implantation with pain as the most common presenting symptom.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansMiddle AgedPelvic Organ ProlapsePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshIUGA/ICS classificationMesh complicationMesh complication classificationMesh removalSling complicationTransvaginal mesh

Identifiers

PMID26690360
OpenAlexW2198921285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.