ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
The transvaginal mesh class action: a tertiary teaching hospital experience of all mid-urethral sling procedures performed between 1999 and 2017.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisClass action against Ethicon (J&J), manufacturer of transvaginal mesh devices, including mid-urethral slings (MUS), was brought to the Federal Court of Australia in 2016 by Shine Lawyers. As a result, subpoenas to all hospitals and networks were received, which overrode patient privacy concerns. This medical record search allowed a complete audit and communication with patients to offer clinical review. This enabled a review of complications, readmission and re-operation for women who underwent a MUS for stress urinary incontinence.
methodsA cohort study of women who underwent MUS treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) at a single tertiary teaching hospital between 1999 and 2017 was carried out. The main outcome measures were the rate of readmission and re-operation following MUS procedures. These include voiding dysfunction managed by sling loosening or sling division, mesh pain or exposure managed by mesh removal and reoperation for recurrent stress urinary incontinence.
resultsBetween 1999 and 2017, a total of 1,462 women were identified as having a MUS; of these, 1,195 (81.7%) had full patient records available. Voiding dysfunction requiring surgical intervention with sling loosening or division was 3%, excision for mesh exposure was 2%, and partial or complete excision for pain was 1% at a median of 10 years from index surgery. The reoperation rate for recurrent stress urinary incontinence was 3%. CONCLUSION(S): This audit of all MUS procedures performed at a tertiary centre confirms an overall low rate of readmission for complications and recurrent SUI surgery; this justifies its continued availability with appropriate informed consent.
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.