Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2023
Subjective outcomes 12 years after transvaginal mesh versus native tissue repair in women with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse; a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2023. 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.
- Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy in Women with Uterine Prolapse: 10-year Follow-up of a Randomised Controlled Trial.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- CORR Insights®: Synthetic Mesh Reconstruction Improves Pelvic Floor Function and Quality of Life After Sacrectomy: A Preliminary Clinical Assessment.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Transvaginal Surgery Using an ORIHIME Mesh With Wider Arms and Adjusted Length.Cureus · 2024Article
- Size Does Matter: Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Minimesh in Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe present study describes an extended follow-up study after 12 years and focusses on subjective outcomes of women who underwent surgery for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse in the randomized index study.
methodsOne hundred and ninety-four (194) women had been randomized in the original study and in the present study, 45 (47%) in the vaginal mesh repair versus 43 (43%) women with conventional vaginal native tissue repair completed the long-term questionnaires. The mesh used was a first-generation non-absorbable mesh kit. All types of conventional vaginal native tissue repairs were allowed, and additional vaginal native tissue repairs were allowed in the mesh group. The questionnaires as applied at baseline were used. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire (PGI-I) was the primary outcome.
resultsAt 12 years, 30 (71%) women in the mesh group versus 23 (59%) women in the native tissue repair group reported to be PGI-I (very) much improved (p=0.24). There were no differences found in any of the questionnaire domains. There was, however, a higher number of women who had had additional operations for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, and/or exposure in the mesh group: 18 women (40%) in the mesh group versus 8 women (19%) in the native tissue repair group (p=0.03).
conclusionsThere was no difference in subjective outcome between the groups, but there was a statistically significant higher number of women who had needed further operations. This study confirms that vaginal mesh should not be used in all women with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.
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.