ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018
Comparison of single- versus multicenter outcomes for pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2018. 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.
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Using Robotic-Assisted Sacral Hysterocolpopexy vs Vaginal Surgery with the Uphold™ System: 1-Year Clinical Outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Association between surgical volumes and real-world healthcare cost when using a mesh capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse: A 5-years comparison between single- versus multicenter use.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to compare the results of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a capturing device-guided transvaginal mesh in a single- vs multicenter setting.
methodsOne hundred and twelve women operated by two surgeons at one center (2-year follow-up) were compared with 207 women operated on by 26 surgeons at 24 centers (1-year follow-up). Patients were screened at baseline for apical (uterine or vaginal vault) prolapse stage II with or without concomitant anterior vaginal wall prolapse ≥ stage 2 according to the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system. Outcome measurements included POP-Q evaluations, prolapse-specific symptom questionnaires, and surgical data.
resultsAt the end of follow-up 95 out of 98 (96.9%) had an optimal anatomical outcome at the apical segment (POP-Q stage 0-1) in the single center compared with 154 out of 164 (93.9%) in the multicenter study (P = 0.03). There were no serious complications in the single-center study compared with 9 out of 207 (4.3%) in the multicenter study. In patients undergoing surgery for recurrence, the risk ratio for complications overall was 4:1 in favor of the single-center study. There were no significant differences between the studies in any subjective symptom scale.
conclusionsCompared with multicenter use, large volumes at a single site only resulted in minor improvements of anatomical outcomes and no significant differences with regard to patient-reported outcomes on pelvic organ function or related quality of life. Instead, the greatest benefit of single-center use was the significantly decreased complication rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28547270What 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.