ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
What can we learn from large data sets? An analysis of 19,000 retropubic tapes.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Reported Outcomes and Complications of Stress Incontinence Surgery: Effect of Patient Characteristics.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Labial Cellulitis and Suprapubic Urine Leakage after Midurethral Sling: A Rare Presentation of Unrecognized Bladder Neck Perforation.Advanced biomedical research · 2021Article
- An unusual late complication with tension-free vaginal tape (TVT): A case report.Case reports in women's health · 2020Article
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
introduction and hypothesisRetropubic tapes are successful for treating stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but there is controversy around risk profiles. The British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) database allows analysis of surgery for patient safety, surveillance and benchmarking. Objectives of this study were to establish success and complication rates in routine practice, determine complication rates for trainees and consultants, explore reasons for outliers and assess perforation as a surrogacy of quality.
methodsApproval was obtained from BSUG to use data on retropubic tapes. Data was anonymised, and patients gave prior consent. Analysis was done using the χ
resultsThere were 18,763 procedures recorded: 14,156 were performed by consultants, 64 by associate specialists (64), 1140 by subspecialty trainees, 2549 by registrars, 201 staff grades and 377 other. We found a 3.5 % bladder perforation rate, which was statistically higher for trainees than consultants (p < 0.05). The rate of other "standard" complications were low: 95.8 % of patients felt better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement of Incontinence (PGI) scale. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in PGI and SUI outcome between patients who did and did not experience perforation.
conclusionsSuccess rates with retropubic tapes are high, with low complication rates. Bladder perforation in "real", not "trial" data was 3.5 %, which is lower than reported by the Cochrane review (4.5 %). Trainees have a higher perforation rate (p < 0.05) because of learning curves. Outliers are easily identified, and reasons for this should be explored, including proportion of trainees doing the surgery. This analysis confirms that bladder perforation is a valid surrogate for quality with a small but measurable difference. We have a responsibility to analyse data to improve patient care and encourage colleagues to support the International Urogynaecology Association (IUGA) database initiative.
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.