ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Assessing pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: does mesh weight matter?
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, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Safety of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Long-Term Mesh Exposure 5 Years Following Minimally Invasive Total Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2024Trial
- A Randomized Trial of Two Lightweight Polypropylene Meshes for Sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse after Sacrocolpopexy-A Surgical Challenge.Journal of clinical medicine · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThere has been a trend toward the use of ultra-lightweight mesh types for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. We hypothesized that ultra-lightweight mesh would have a greater proportion of composite anatomical pelvic organ prolapse recurrence than lightweight mesh.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexies at two academic institutions from 2009 to 2016. Our primary outcome was composite anatomical prolapse recurrence, defined as prolapse beyond the hymen or retreatment with pessary or surgery, compared between ultra-lightweight (≤21 g/m
resultsThe cohort consisted of 1,272 laparoscopic (n = 530, 41.7%) and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexies (n = 742, 58.4%). Lightweight mesh was used in 745 procedures (58.6%) and ultra-lightweight mesh in 527 (41.4%). The lightweight mesh had longer median follow-up than the ultra-lightweight group (344 [IQR 50-670] vs 143 days [IQR 44-379], p < 0.01). There was no difference in composite anatomical prolapse recurrence between lightweight and ultra-lightweight mesh (54 [7.2%] vs 35 [6.6%], p = 0.68). Ultra-lightweight mesh demonstrated a shorter time to prolapse recurrence (p < 0.01), which remained significant on multivariate Cox regression (HR 2.38 [95% CI 1.47-3.87]). The lightweight mesh had significantly more mesh complications (43 [5.8%] vs 7 [1.3%], p < 0.01).
conclusionsUltra-lightweight mesh for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy was not associated with a higher proportion of composite anatomical prolapse recurrence; however, it was associated with a shorter time to recurrence. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the clinical importance of this finding, particularly given the trade-off of more complications with lightweight mesh.
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.