ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018
Comparison of strength of sacrocolpopexy mesh attachment using barbed and nonbarbed sutures.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe aimed to assess the pull-out strength of barbed and nonbarbed sutures used in sacrocolpopexy mesh fixation. We hypothesized there are no differences in the force needed to dislodge mesh from tissue using barbed and nonbarbed sutures of similar size.
methodsUsing the rectus fascia of three unembalmed cadavers, a 6 × 3 cm strip of polypropylene mesh was anchored to the fascia with sutures. The barbed sutures investigated were 2-0 V-Loc 180 (nine trials) and 3-0 bidirectional Quill™ SRS PDO (five trials). The nonbarbed sutures included 2-0 PDS (nine trials), CV-2 GORE-TEX (nine trials) and 2-0 Prolene (nine trials). The free-end of the mesh was anchored to a pulley system fixed to a tensiometer to measure the peak force applied at the moment of mesh dislodgement (termed the pull-out force). The pull-out force was recorded. Continuous variables are presented as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). Analysis of variance was used to compare the forces across the suture types.
resultsThe highest pull-out force observed was with GORE-TEX (median 65.14 N, IQR 53.37-68.77 N) followed by Prolene (median 58.98 N, IQR 54.64-62.59 N), V-Loc (median 55.23 N, IQR 51.60-58.57 N), PDS (53.96 N, IQR 51.60-57.88 N), and Quill (44.44 N, IQR 17.27-47.38 N). All 2-0 and CV-2 caliber sutures had greater pull-out forces than 3-0 Quill sutures (p < 0.01). No significant differences in pull-out forces were observed between 2-0 and CV-2 caliber sutures (p > 0.05). In 35 of the 41 trials (85%), the mesh sheared from the tissue.
conclusionCV-2 ad 2-0 barbed and nonbarbed sutures had similar pull-out forces in an assessment of mesh fixation strength.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28980021What 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.