Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2020
No mesh versus mesh in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: prospective, randomised, controlled trial, long-term follow-up.
Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Quality of Life Assessment After Pelvic Prolapse Surgery With and Without Mesh: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh repair in a cohort with a minimum of 10-year follow-up.Science China. Life sciences · 2024Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of anterior colporrhaphy (AC) versus transvaginal polypropylene mesh (PM) for the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse (AVWP) at long-term follow-up.
methodsProspective and randomized controlled trial, 100 women with AVWP stage ≥ II assessed by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) underwent AC (control group) or PM insertion (mesh group). At baseline and at 60-month follow-up, safety profile, anatomical outcomes by POP-Q measurements and staging, subjective outcomes and quality of life (QoL) impact by ICIQ (SF and VV) and OAB-V8 questionnaires were assessed
results76 women completed the study, 43 in Control versus 33 in Mesh group. Significant improvements were observed in all variables between the 2 times in each group (p < 0.0001), without differences between groups. Objective cure (POP-Q Ba ≤ - 2 and Ba ≤ - 1) occurred in 22 and 36 (51.2 and 83.7%) versus 23 and 31 (69.7 and 93.9%), p = 0.10 and 0.29; and subjective cure (VSS, no vaginal symptom) in 21 (48.8%) versus 17 (51.5%), p = 0.82, respectively, at 60-month follow-up. When adjusted for the other variables, Mesh group showed worse QoL impact due to subjective vaginal symptoms (odds ratio 3.99, CI 95% 1.13; 14.13). AVW asymptomatic mesh exposure occurred in 2 patients (6.06%) in the Mesh group.
conclusionsAC and PM provided good overall objective and subjective outcomes for a minimum 60-month follow-up. Vaginal and urinary symptoms improved post-operatively in both groups. Mesh group experienced four times more negative impact on QoL compared to Control at 60-month follow-up.
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.