ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023
AbsorbaTack
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fortifying the foundation: assessing the role of uterine ligament integrity in uterine prolapse and beyond.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Potential of the Novel Slot Blot Method with a PVDF Membrane for Protein Identification and Quantification in Kampo Medicines.Membranes · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTreatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) often requires the use of synthetic mesh. In case of a novel and standardized bilateral apical fixation, both uterosacral ligaments are replaced by polyvinylidene-fluoride (PVDF) tapes. One of the main problems remains the fixation method, which should be stable, but also simple and quick to use. The current study evaluated biomechanical differences between the cervical tape fixation with sutures (group 1), non-absorbable tacks (group 2) and absorbable tacks (group 3) in an in vitro porcine model.
methodsA total of 28 trials, conducted in three groups, were performed on porcine, fresh cadaver uteri. All trials were performed until mesh, tissue or fixation device failure occurred. Primary endpoints were the biomechanical properties maximum load (N), displacement at failure (mm) and stiffness (N/mm). The failure mode was a secondary endpoint.
resultsThere was a significant difference between all three groups concerning the maximum load. Group 1 (sutures) supported a maximum load of 64 ± 15 N, group 2 (non-absorbable tacks) yielded 41 ± 10 N and group 3 (absorbable tacks) achieved 15 ± 8 N. The most common failure mode was a mesh failure for group 1 and 2 and a fixation device failure for group 3.
conclusionThe PVDF-tape fixation with sutures supports 1.5 times the load that is supported by non-absorbable tacks and 4.2 times the load that is supported by absorbable tacks. Nevertheless, there was also a stable fixation through tacks. Sutures are the significantly stronger and cheaper fixation device but may prolong the surgical time in contrast to the use of tacks.
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.