ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
Evidence to justify retention of transvaginal mesh: comparison between laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and transvaginal Elevate™ mesh.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urinary and sexual impact of pelvic reconstructive surgery for genital prolapse by surgical route. A randomized controlled trial.International urogynecology journal · 2022Trial
- Vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral sacrospinous fixation plus an anterior mesh versus abdominal sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of primary apical prolapse in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled study.International urogynecology journal · 2020Trial
- Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh.International urogynecology journal · 2019Trial
- Safety and Effectiveness of G-MeshJournal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo determine if laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) offers better apical support with a lower exposure rate than transvaginal mesh surgery with Elevate™.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients with apical prolapse (POP-Q point C ≥ -1) who underwent Elevate™ mesh repair (n = 146) with patients who underwent laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (n = 267).
resultsThe sacral colpopexy group had a mean age of 59 years and a BMI of 25.7. Patients in the Elevate™ group were older, with a mean age of 63 and a BMI of 26.3. Most of the patients of both groups presented with pelvic organ prolapse stage III (LSC 73.8% and Elevate™ 87.0%) and their mean POP-Q point C were not significantly different (LSC 1.4 vs Elevate™ 1.2 cm). Operative time was longer in the LSC group (113 vs 91 min, p < 0.001), but estimated blood loss was lower (75 cm
conclusionTransvaginal Elevate™ mesh delivers comparable apical support with a low exposure rate similar to that of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.
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.