ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Long-term safety and efficacy of laparoscopically placed mesh for apical prolapse.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Approach for Apical Prolapse Surgery: Meshless Pectopexy (Salman's Modification).International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Gynecologists' perspectives on surgical treatment for apical prolapse: a qualitative study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Triple-compartment strategy for abdominal sacral colpopexy using PVDF mesh: one-year report of anatomical and subjective outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review.International urogynecology journal · 2022Review
- Prospective International Multicenter Pelvic Floor Study: Short-Term Follow-Up and Clinical Findings for Combined Pectopexy and Native Tissue Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisConcerns regarding the use of vaginal mesh for prolapse have led to questions about the safety and efficacy of abdominally placed mesh. Mesh procedures for treating apical prolapse have become popular, either a laparoscopic hysteropexy (LSH) for uterine prolapse or a sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for vaginal vault prolapse. Robust long-term safety and efficacy data for these procedures are essential.
methodsAll patients who had LSH or LSC since 2010 were invited back for face-to-face review and examination. Case notes were reviewed for surgical morbidities and patients were questioned about short- and long-term complications. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale was used to assess prolapse, bladder and bowel symptoms postoperatively.
resultsOne hundred twelve patients were included in the review, 93 of whom were examined. The median time since surgery was 6 years (range 1-9 years); 2.7% cases had an intraoperative complication, two conversions to laparotomy and one bladder injury. Overall, 17.3% patients sought medical review postoperatively, with 10.7% having problems with their skin incisions. With regard to mesh safety, there was one case of bowel obstruction requiring resection following LSH and two vaginal mesh exposures following LSC; 97% had stage 1 or less apical prolapse at long-term follow-up and 79.6% reported symptoms of prolapse to be 'much better' or 'very much better' on the PGI-I scale.
conclusionsThis study shows excellent long-term results from LSC and LSH with comprehensive follow-up, demonstrating a very low and acceptable level of intraoperative, short- and long-term complications.
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.