ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
Long-term outcome (5-10 years) after non absorbable mesh insertion compared to partially absorbable mesh insertion for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair.
Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate long-term (5-10 years) outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical (MIS) kit insertion with Prolift® (non-absorbable) mesh compared to the use of Prolift M® (partially absorbable), for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair. STUDY
designIn this retrospective study we compared women undergoing MIS kit Prolift ® insertion (n=90) vs. Prolift M® insertion (n=79) for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair between 2006 and 2012 at our Institution. A number of 169 women fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study.
resultsDuring the study period 128 women (76%) completed full follow-up; of them 58 (73%) following MIS kit Prolift® insertion, and 70 (88%) following MIS kit ProliftM® insertion. There was no signifi cant difference between the Prolift® and Prolift M® regarding parity (3.04 vs. 2.88, p=0.506), presence of hypertension (24.1% vs. 39.1%, p=0.088), diabetes mellitus (3.4% vs. 11.6%, p=0.109), or urinary stress incontinence (39.7% vs. 47.1%, p=0.475). All participants had been diagnosed with POP grade 3 or 4 before the procedure. No significant complications during the procedure or postoperative period were identified in the study groups. The follow-up period was at least five years in duration for both groups. Both groups were comparable according to questionnaires focused on function and satisfaction.
conclusionPatients undergoing MIS kit Prolift® and Prolift M® insertion for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair had comparable early and late postoperative outcomes. No differences in patient's function and satisfaction between the two groups were identified. According to our fi ndings, there is no superiority to either of the two studied mesh devices.
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.