Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28150032›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017

Reoperations for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair: 8-year experience at a tertiary referral center.

Sophie Warembourg, Majd Labaki, Renaud de Tayrac, Pierre Costa, Brigitte Fatton

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. When things go wrong: experiences of vaginal mesh complications.International urogynecology journal · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sophie WarembourgGynecology Department, Urogynecology Unit, Nîmes Hospital, Nîmes, France. sophie.warembourg@chu-nimes.fr.
Majd LabakiGynecology Department, Urogynecology Unit, Nîmes Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Renaud de TayracGynecology Department, Urogynecology Unit, Nîmes Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Pierre CostaUrology Department, Urogynecology Unit, Nîmes Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Brigitte FattonGynecology Department, Urogynecology Unit, Nîmes Hospital, Nîmes, France.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes · FRUniversité de Montpellier · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe use of mesh in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery has become a widespread treatment option, but carries a risk of specific complications. The objective was to report the rate and type of reoperation for mesh-related complications after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in an urogynecological referral center over a period of 8 years.

methodsA retrospective study was carried out including all patients operated for a mesh complication after prolapse surgery between September 2006 and September 2014 in the urogynecology unit in Nîmes hospital.

resultsSixty-nine mesh complications were recorded among the 67 patients included. Surgical treatment of mesh-related complications accounted for 7% of all pelvic surgeries performed in our center. Thirty-two patients (47.8%) were referred from other centers and 35 patients (52.2%) were initially operated in our unit. The global rate of reintervention for mesh-related complications after prolapse repair performed in our unit was 2.8%. Of 69 mesh complications, 48 patients (71.6%) had transvaginal mesh (TVM) and 19 patients (28.4%) sacrocolpopexy (SCP). The indication for surgery was a symptomatic or large vaginal erosion (47.8%), symptomatic mesh contraction (20.3%), and infection (11.6%). The most frequent primary symptom was pelvic/perineal pain or dyspareunia (33.3% of cases). The mean time between initial mesh surgery and the reoperation for a complication was 33.4 months (95% CI, 24.5 to 42.2). Eleven patients (15.9%) required several interventions. In total, 77.9% of patients experienced complete recovery of symptoms after surgical management.

conclusionIn a referral center the global rate of reinterventions for mesh-related complications after POP repair is 2.8%. The surgical treatment of mesh complications appears to be a safe and effective procedure with cure of the symptoms in most cases.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDyspareuniaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPelvic Organ ProlapsePelvic PainPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshTertiary Care CentersTreatment OutcomeVaginaPelvic organ prolapsePelvic painPost-operative complicationSacrocolpopexyTrans-vaginal meshVaginal erosion

Identifiers

PMID28150032
OpenAlexW2585180454

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.