ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2021
Long-term outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a mesh-capturing device when comparing single- versus multicenter use.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome 1 Year After Surgery by Robotics-Assisted Sacral Hystero-Colpopexy Versus Vaginal Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Using Robotic-Assisted Sacral Hysterocolpopexy vs Vaginal Surgery with the Uphold™ System: 1-Year Clinical Outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Path-related pain after implantation of anterior transvaginal mesh: perspective from anatomical study.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Association between surgical volumes and real-world healthcare cost when using a mesh capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse: A 5-years comparison between single- versus multicenter use.International urogynecology journal · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare long-term effects of high-volume surgery at a single-center to multicenter use when using a mesh-capturing device for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair.
methodsFive years after surgery 101 (88%) at the single center were compared with 164 (81.2%) in the multicenter trial. Outcome measurements included clinical examination, prolapse-specific symptom questionnaires [Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)] and pain estimation by VAS (0-10).
resultsOptimal apical segment outcome was 95% in the single- compared to 83.3% in the multicenter study (p < 0.001). POP recurrence in the anterior and posterior walls (POP-Q, Ba and Bp ≥ 0) was more common at the multicenter as compared to the single center [(19.8% vs 5.4%) and (26% vs 2.7%), (p < 0.001)]. Reoperations for POP and mesh-related complications were more frequent in the multicenter study [31/202 (15.3%) vs 7/116 (6.1%), p < 0.001]. Total PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and PISQ-12 scores were comparable between the cohorts. There were no significant differences in overall pain scores in-between the cohorts during follow-up. At the single center, 1/81 patients (1.2%) had VAS 7/10, i.e. severe pain, as compared to 3/131 (2.3%) in the multicenter study (p = 0.277).
conclusionsDespite the high objective and subjective long-term effectiveness of the procedure in both regular use, and at a high-volume center, centralizing the use of a standardized capturing-device guided transvaginal mesh for POP repair reduced secondary interventions by more than half.
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.