ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
Long-term efficacy and safety of tension free vaginal tape in a historic cohort of 463 women with stress urinary incontinence.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The management of vaginal prolapse and stress incontinence mesh complications in a quaternary mesh complications service in the United Kingdom (U.K): a 5-year observational study.BMC women's health · 2025Observational
- Functional outcomes of vaginal surgery for urethral extrusion of mid-urethral tape in women.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Complications and re-operations after tension-free vaginal tape operation in women with stress urinary incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Management of mid-urethral tape complications: a retrospective study.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2020Article
- Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in women with stress urinary incontinence treated with suburethral slings: a randomised trial.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2020Article
- Contemporary diagnostics and treatment options for female stress urinary incontinence.Asian journal of urology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe report retrospective data on the long-term safety and efficacy of the retropubic midurethral sling (MUS) in a large series of women with stress urinary incontinence.
methodsIn all, 517 patients were treated during the period January 2005 to June 2012 at a single centre in France. The Urinary Symptoms Profile score was used to identify women who were subjectively cured or improved or in whom treatment had failed. The rates of peroperative, and early (<30 days) and late postoperative complications were recorded.
resultsA total of 463 patients were evaluable at a mean (±SD) follow-up of 71 ± 23 months. At the last follow-up, 344 patients (74.3 %) demonstrated subjective cure, 55 (11.9 %) were improved and 64 (13.8 %) had treatment failure. Bladder perforations occurred in 33 patients (7.1 %); however, this had no effect on cure rate. In the early postoperative period, temporary intermittent self-catheterization was required in 10 patients (2.2 %) due to voiding difficulties. The most frequent long-term postoperative complication was de novo urge incontinence that was reported by 59 patients (12.7 %); seven patients (1.5 %) needed tape excision due to voiding difficulties and six (1.3 %) needed tape removal due to erosion or chronic pain.
conclusionsThe retropubic MUS was shown to be durable at a mean follow-up of 71 ± 23 months, with a high success/improvement rate and no serious long-term tape-induced adverse effects.
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.