ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
A comprehensive look at risk factors for mid-urethral sling revision surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Related Risk Factors for Mesh Erosion Following Midurethral Sling Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Pooled it
- The Long-Term Rate of Reoperation After Midurethral Sling Insertion Among Women With Urinary Incontinence: A Population-Based Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Secondary urethral sphincter function of the rabbit pelvic and perineal muscles.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
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
introductionThe objective of this study was to identify risk factors and urodynamic parameters predictive of mid-urethral sling (MUS) revision surgery that can be used for counseling patients and individualizing risk prediction.
methodsRetrospective case-control analysis of 40 sling revisions performed during the 12-year study period were compared to 123 control cases that did not require revision to obtain a 1:3 case-to-control ratio. Demographic, perioperative, and urodynamic data were analyzed, with p < 0.05 as significant. Independent predictors of sling revision were assessed by binary logistic regression models, with risk expressed as adjusted odds ratios.
resultsAfter multiple regression analysis, younger age at time of index MUS placement (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.97), increasing number of cesarean deliveries (CD) (aOR 2.00, 95% CI 1.01-3.96), and concomitant apical prolapse repair during index MUS procedure (aOR 4.63, 95% CI 1.34-15.93) were significant predictors of sling revision.
conclusionsYoung age at the time of placement, multiple CD, and concomitant apical prolapse repair were independent factors predictive of sling revision. Giving consideration to risk factors could improve patient counseling and surgical candidate selection.
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.