ReviewCurrent urology reports2016
Mesh Perforation into a Viscus in the Setting of Pelvic Floor Surgery-Presentation and Management.
Review in Current urology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of patients with mesh perforation into viscus following pelvic mesh surgery.World journal of urology · 2025Observational
- Management of Sacrocolpopexy Mesh Complications-A Narrative Review and Clinical Experience from a Large-Volume Center.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Transvaginal repair of a rectovaginal fistula caused by transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery.IJU case reports · 2022Article
- Road to recovery after transvaginal surgery for urethral mesh perforation: evaluation of outcomes and subsequent procedures.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perforation of a viscus with a mesh product either during or subsequent to pelvic floor reconstruction can be associated with devastating outcomes. If surgeons are going to place mesh, they also need to be familiar with symptoms concerning for perforation. The index of suspicion should always be present, as these patients can present years after initial mesh placement. The best opportunity for intervention in these serious complications is the first intervention. As bits of mesh are chipped away during attempted interventions, residual mesh fragments become disjointed, frayed, and scarred further, making their removal even more challenging, in addition to traumatizing likely already weakened tissues. This review presents strategies for patient evaluation in the setting of possible mesh perforation, in addition to treatment strategies for urethral, bladder, ureteral, and colonic/rectal injury. Ultimately, the decision as to how much mesh is removed should be based on each patient's unique presentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27438809What 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.