ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024
Evaluation of Outcomes Between the Top-down Versus the Bottom-up Approach for Retropubic Midurethral Sling.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisRetropubic midurethral sling (MUS) placement is the gold standard for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in the USA. The procedure can be approached from either a top-down or a bottom-up direction, but there is a paucity of contemporary data regarding outcomes between these approaches. The aim of this study was to provide updated clinical outcomes data.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of women undergoing the retropubic MUS procedure alone or at the time of pelvic organ prolapse repair between 2010 and 2020 at a single academic medical center. The electronic medical record was used to extract demographic data, operative approach, and perioperative complications. The primary outcome was a composite incidence of any perioperative complication.
resultsOf the 309 patients analyzed, 140 (45.3%) underwent top-down and 169 (54.7%) underwent bottom-up retropubic MUS placement. Patients undergoing top-down MUS placement were more likely to be older (mean age 58 vs 54, p=0.02), have a history of diabetes mellitus (20% vs 8.9%, p=0.004), and have had a prior hysterectomy (27% vs 16%, p=0.02). They were less likely to have a concurrent anterior (p<0.001) or posterior repair (p<0.001). Patients undergoing the top-down procedure were less likely to experience sling exposure (p=0.02); complications in the two groups were otherwise similar.
conclusionsThe top-down approach to retropubic MUS placement was associated with lower rates of mesh erosion in this population of patients. Neither approach is associated with an increased overall risk of complications or de novo overactive bladder symptoms.
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.