Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32620978›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020

Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study.

Matthew L Izett-Kay, Dana Aldabeeb, Anthony S Kupelian, Rufus Cartwright, Alfred S Cutner, Simon Jackson, Natalia Price, Arvind Vashisht

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Laparoscopic synthetic mesh explantation after sacrohysteropexy.International urogynecology journal · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew L Izett-KayUrogynaecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, University College London Hospitals, Clinic 2, Lower Ground Floor, EGA Wing, 235 Euston Road, London, NW12BU, UK. m.izett@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0126-5177
Dana AldabeebUCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, Medical School Building, 74 Huntley Street, London, WC1E 6AU, UK.
Anthony S KupelianUrogynaecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, University College London Hospitals, Clinic 2, Lower Ground Floor, EGA Wing, 235 Euston Road, London, NW12BU, UK.
Rufus CartwrightDepartment of Urogynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, Headley Way, Oxford, Headington, OX3 9DU, UK.
Alfred S CutnerUrogynaecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, University College London Hospitals, Clinic 2, Lower Ground Floor, EGA Wing, 235 Euston Road, London, NW12BU, UK.
Simon JacksonDepartment of Urogynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, Headley Way, Oxford, Headington, OX3 9DU, UK.
Natalia PriceDepartment of Urogynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals, Headley Way, Oxford, Headington, OX3 9DU, UK.
Arvind VashishtUrogynaecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, University College London Hospitals, Clinic 2, Lower Ground Floor, EGA Wing, 235 Euston Road, London, NW12BU, UK.
University College Hospital · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe paucity of long-term safety and efficacy data to support laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy is noteworthy given concerns about the use of polypropylene mesh in pelvic floor surgery. This study is aimed at determining the incidence of mesh-associated complications and reoperation following this procedure.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional postal questionnaire study of women who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy between 2010 and 2018. Potential participants were identified from surgical databases of five surgeons at two tertiary urogynaecology centres in the UK. The primary outcome was patient-reported mesh complication requiring removal of hysteropexy mesh. Secondary outcomes included other mesh-associated complications, reoperation rates and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) in prolapse symptoms. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used.

resultsOf 1,766 eligible participants, 1,121 women responded (response proportion 63.5%), at a median follow-up of 46 months. The incidence of mesh complications requiring removal of hysteropexy mesh was 0.4% (4 out of 1,121). The rate of chronic pain service use was 1.8%, and newly diagnosed systemic autoimmune disorders was 5.8%. The rate of reoperation for apical prolapse was 3.7%, and for any form of pelvic organ prolapse it was 13.6%. For PGI-I, 81.4% of patients were "much better" or "very much better".

conclusionsLaparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy has a low incidence of reoperation for mesh complications and apical prolapse, and a high rate of patient-reported improvement in prolapse symptoms. With appropriate clinical governance measures, the procedure offers an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension. However, long-term comparative studies are still required.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPelvic Organ ProlapseCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansReoperationSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopyPelvic organ prolapseReoperationSurgical meshUterine prolapse

Identifiers

PMID32620978
PMCPMC7679361
OpenAlexW3040596860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.