ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Lightweight transvaginal mesh is associated with lower mesh exposure rates than heavyweight mesh.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Subjective outcomes 12 years after transvaginal mesh versus native tissue repair in women with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse; a randomized controlled trial.International urogynecology journal · 2023Trial
- From Mesh to Modern Therapies: An Updated Narrative Review on Urogenital Prolapse.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Exosome injection as a prevention strategy for early postoperative mesh complications in a porcine model of sacrocolpopexy.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2025Article
- Trends in Urogynecology-Transvaginal Mesh Surgery in Germany.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Mesh-augmented transvaginal repair of recurrent or complex anterior pelvic organ prolapse in accordance with the SCENIHR opinion.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThere has been a scarcity of long-term published data comparing lightweight versus heavier weight transvaginal mesh for prolapse repair. The aim was to ascertain the long-term rates of recurrent prolapse and mesh exposure in a cohort of vaginal repairs utilizing two different weights of transvaginal mesh.
methodsData were prospectively collected on all mesh-augmented vaginal prolapse repairs performed with Apogee® or Perigee® mesh kits (IntePro® or IntePro Lite®) at a single centre over an 11-year period, with patients receiving ongoing annual follow-up. A sequential stepwise univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify variables that were significantly associated with mesh exposure.
resultsEighty-eight women with 113 mesh kits were reviewed from the original cohort of 158 women. The median length of follow-up was 6.4 years (range 1.1-12.5 years). Mesh exposure rate per implant in the IntePro® group was 16/40 (40%) versus 4/73 (5.5%) in the IntePro Lite® group (p < 0.0001). A hazard ratio of 4.2 was identified for mesh exposure for IntePro® versus IntePro Lite® (95% CI 3.0-6.8). There was no difference in rates of recurrent prolapse between the heavy- and lightweight mesh groups.
conclusionsLightweight transvaginal mesh is associated with lower mesh exposure rates than heavyweight mesh at a median follow-up of 6.4 years, with no difference in rates of recurrent prolapse.
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.