ReviewAnnals of coloproctology2017
Synthetic Versus Biological Mesh-Related Erosion After Laparoscopic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy: A Systematic Review.
Review in Annals of coloproctology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Guideline
- Mesh-associated complications in minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Mesh-related complications and recurrence after ventral mesh rectopexy with synthetic versus biologic mesh: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Pooled it
- Outcomes of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy versus trans-vaginal repair in management of anterior rectocele, a randomized controlled trial.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Trial
- Feasibility and safety of biologic OviTex mesh in ventral mesh rectopexy: a prospective pilot study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Trial
- Feasibility and safety of biologic OviTex mesh in ventral mesh rectopexy: a prospective pilot study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Trial
- Disclosure of mesh origin in rectopexy: an under-recognized component of informed consent.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Rectal prolapse: tailoring operative strategy to pathophysiology.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- The Japan Society of Coloproctology Practice Guidelines for Fecal Incontinence 2024 (Revised Second Edition).Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2026Review
- Surgeon preferences and practice patterns in rectopexy: Results of an international survey.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026Article
- Mesh in rectopexy: biological, synthetic, or hybrid?Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Article
- Ventral Rectopexy: An International Expert Panel Consensus and Review of Contemporary Literature.Diseases of the colon and rectum · 2025Article
- Ventral mesh rectopexy for recurrent rectal prolapse after Altemeier perineal proctosigmoidectomy: feasibility and outcomes.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Moving from Laparoscopic Synthetic Mesh to Robotic Biological Mesh for Ventral Rectopexy: Results from a Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- The international variability of surgery for rectal prolapse.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Modified Laparoscopic Suture Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2023Article
- Mesh erosion into the rectum after laparoscopic posterior rectopexy: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review reports the incidence of mesh-related erosion after ventral mesh rectopexy to determine whether any difference exists in the erosion rate between synthetic and biological mesh.
methodsA systematic search of the MEDLINE and the Ovid databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2004 and 2015. The search strategy capture terms were laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, laparoscopic anterior rectopexy, robotic ventral rectopexy, and robotic anterior rectopexy.
resultsEight studies (3,956 patients) were included in this review. Of those patients, 3,517 patients underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) using synthetic mesh and 439 using biological mesh. Sixty-six erosions were observed with synthetic mesh (26 rectal, 32 vaginal, 8 recto-vaginal fistulae) and one (perineal erosion) with biological mesh. The synthetic and the biological mesh-related erosion rates were 1.87% and 0.22%, respectively. The time between rectopexy and diagnosis of mesh erosion ranged from 1.7 to 124 months. No mesh-related mortalities were reported.
conclusionThe incidence of mesh-related erosion after LVR is low and is more common after the placement of synthetic mesh. The use of biological mesh for LVR seems to be a safer option; however, large, multicenter, randomized, control trials with long follow-ups are required if a definitive answer is to be obtained.
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.