ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Efficacy of surgical revision of mesh complications in prolapse and urinary incontinence surgery.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The developing field of meshology - what is new in the management of mesh complications in female incontinence and prolapse - a systematic review of outcomes.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Response to Commentary: Autoimmune/Autoinflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA Syndrome) After Polypropylene Mesh Implantation - Protocol of a Pilot Study for Diagnostics and Treatment.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Article
- Prediction of successful revision surgery for mesh-related complaints after inguinal hernia and pelvic organ prolapse repair.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse Mesh Graft Revision Surgery: Rates of Complication by Surgical Approach.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWomen with mesh-related complications in prolapse (POP) and stress-urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery may benefit from operative mesh resection to alleviate symptoms. We hypothesized that mesh resection would alleviate symptoms and aimed to evaluate risks and benefits in these women.
methodsWe carried out a cross-sectional study. Primary outcome was improvement specified as better, unchanged or worsened symptoms after mesh revision surgery. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (HrQol) scores of validated questionnaires, surgical characteristics and physical findings at follow-up visits. Descriptive data were reported with mean and medians. Associations were calculated with Spearman correlation coefficient and chi-square test to determine statistical differences between groups.
resultsFifty-nine women who underwent mesh revision surgery between 2009 and 2016 were included. After a median follow-up of 1.7 (IQR: 1.1-2.4) years, 44 women (75%) reported improvement of symptoms. No significant surgical or patient characteristics were identified that could differentiate which patients did or did not experience cure or complications.A trend was observed to better HrQol scores in women who reported overall improvement after mesh revision surgery. Seventeen (29%) women needed a subsequent operation after mesh removal.
conclusionsThis cross-sectional study shows that mesh revision surgery alleviates symptoms in 75% of women with mesh-related complications. Type of revision surgery and individual characteristics did not seem to matter to the individual chance of cure or complications. These data can facilitate the counseling of women considering mesh revision surgery.
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.