ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2018
Is pain relief after vaginal mesh and/or sling removal durable long term?
Review 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 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.
- The developing field of meshology - what is new in the management of mesh complications in female incontinence and prolapse - a systematic review of outcomes.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- How is pain associated with pelvic mesh implants measured? Refinement of the construct and a scoping review of current assessment tools.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Tobacco use, immunosuppressive, chronic pain, and psychiatric conditions are prevalent in women with symptomatic mesh complications undergoing mesh removal surgery.Investigative and clinical urology · 2020Article
- Management of complications arising from the use of mesh for stress urinary incontinence-International Urogynecology Association Research and Development Committee opinion.International urogynecology journal · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis study was to review our experience of pain relief durability in women who experienced initial pain resolution after vaginal mesh and/or sling removal (VMSR).
methodsA retrospective chart review of consecutive, nonneurogenic women who underwent VMSR for pain and reported persistent pain relief at the 6-month postoperative follow-up visit were assessed. Pre- and postoperative data collected were self-reported chief complaints, physical examination, other medical conditions associated with chronic pain, use of pain medications, Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (in which question 6 specifically addresses pain), and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Success was defined by continued resolution of pain assessed by score of 0 on NPRS (0 none to 10 terrible), (0-1 on the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6) question 6, subjective report of pain-free status, and/or no chronic use of pain medications other than those prescribed for non-mesh-related pain.
resultsBetween 2006 and 2015, 125 of 356 women met study criteria. Mean follow-up after VMSR was 3.5 (range 0.5-10) years. Among 25 women who did not meet success criteria by questionnaire answers or subjective report, 21 had causes unrelated to their original mesh/sling placement and were pain free after they were addressed. Four women experienced delayed mesh-related pain return at 28, 46, 47, and 54 months, respectively; two required mesh removal surgery. Involvement in lawsuits and chronic pain-related medical conditions did not affect the durability of pain relief.
conclusionsAt a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the original pain relief noted after VMSR was durably maintained.
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.