ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2017
[Implants for genital prolapse : Pro mesh surgery].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2017. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Function, quality-of-life and complications after sacrospinous ligament fixation using an antegrade reusable suturing device (ARSD-Ney) at 6 and 12 months: a retrospective cohort study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- [Old wine in new bottles-proven open-surgical procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been an overall increase in pelvic organ prolapse due to demographic changes (increased life expectancy). Increasing sociocultural demands of women require treatments that are more effective with methods that are more successful. In the treatment of pelvic floor insufficiency and uterovaginal prolapse, pelvic floor reconstructions with mesh implants have proven to be superior to conventional methods such as the classic colporrhaphy, reconstructions with biomaterial, and native tissue repair in appropriately selected patients and when applying exact operation techniques, especially because of good long-term results and low recurrence rates. When making a systematic therapy plan, one should adhere to certain steps, for example, a pelvic floor reconstruction should be undertaken before performing the corrective procedure for incontinence. The approach, if vaginal, laparoscopic, or abdominal should be chosen wisely, taking into consideration the required space of action, in such a way that none or only minimal collateral damage related to the operation occurs. The use of instrumental suturing techniques and operation robots are advantageous in the case of difficult approaches and limited anatomical spaces. In principle, the surgeon who implants meshes should be able to explant them! The surgical concept of mesh-related interventions in the pelvis must meet established rules. "Implant as little mesh as possible and only as much suitable (!) mesh as absolutely necessary!" In the case of apical direct fixations, a therapeutically relevant target variable is the elevation angle of vagina (EAV). Established anatomical fixation points are preferable. A safe distance between implants and vulnerable tissue is to be maintained. Mesh-based prolapse repairs are indicated in recurrences, in primary situations, in combined defects of the anterior compartment, in central defects of multimorbid and elderly patients, and above all, when organ preservation is wanted. Native connective tissue structures are to be preserved, strengthened and reconstructed to restore altered functions. Practical skills for highly specialized mesh-based operations as well as effective techniques for complication management should be taught in interdisciplinary specialist courses.
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.