ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2016
A retrospective comparison of two vaginal mesh kits in the management of anterior and apical vaginal prolapse: long-term results for apical fixation and quality of life.
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 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.
- Clinical Course and Conservative Strategy for Persistent De Novo Stress Urinary Incontinence After Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair with Transvaginal Mesh.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Quality of Life Following Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatments in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
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 hypothesisTo compare apical correction in stage ≥3 cystocele between two mesh kits.
methodsThis was a retrospective, nonrandomized study that compared two groups matched on anterior/apical POP-Q stage: 84 received Elevate Ant™ single-incision mesh (Elevate Ant group) and 42 Perigee™ transvaginal mesh (Perigee group). Follow-up at 1 and 2 years comprised objective (POP-Q) and subjective (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12) assessments. The primary endpoint was objective success: 2-year apical POP-Q stage ≤1. Secondary endpoints were anterior POP-Q stage, subjective results and complications.
resultsGroups were comparable in terms of age (66.6 and 64.7 years, respectively; p = 0.19), BMI (both 25.4 kg/m
conclusionsThe use of the Elevate Ant mesh was associated with significantly better apical correction at 2 years. Function improved in both groups, but with a significantly better PFDI-20 score in the Elevate Ant group at 1 and 2 years. The postoperative stress urinary incontinence rate, however, tended to be greater in the Elevate Ant group. The results need confirming with longer follow-up of these cohorts and in randomized studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27221764What 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.