ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024
Long-Term Outcomes of the Altis® Single-Incision Sling: Up to 10 Years' Follow-up.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home Removal of Urinary Catheters After Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Vaginal Mesh Exposure After Single-Incision vs Full-Length Midurethral Sling Placement: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Anchor-Related Granulomatous Reaction After Single-Incision Mid-urethral Sling Placement: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Impact of Single-Incision Sling Placement on Female Sexual Function in Women with Stress Urinary Incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Single Incision Sling Surgery for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Retrospective Cohort Single-Institution Study.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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisSingle-incision slings (SIS) have emerged as a less invasive alternative to conventional slings for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) treatment. However, long-term efficacy and safety results remain uncertain owing to a lack of studies. MATERIAL AND
methodsA retrospective review of 155 patients treated with Altis® for SUI between February 2012 and June 2017, held in 2022, as a continuation of a prospective study in which all patients (197) were reviewed for 2 years after surgery (1, 6, 12, and 24 months). Preoperative demographic data, comorbidities, and pressure-flow studies were also recorded. Continence status and satisfaction rates were assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form (ICIQ-SF) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) respectively. The assessment in the 2022 retrospective review was performed via a telephone survey.
resultsMean follow-up time after surgery was 85.3 months (82.5-88.1). In 2022, complete continence was present in 75.4% of the patients. The presence of urinary urgency conditioned the ICIQ-SF score (10.9 vs 1.7 points, p < 0.01), with the ICIQ-SF = 0 in 84.5% of the patients with no associated urgency. Satisfaction assessed by the PGI-I was high, with 84.6% of the patients showing improvement. De novo urgency was present in 37,9% of the patients by 2022. Urinary tract infections were the most frequent complication (9.7%), with only 5 documented cases of mesh erosion.
conclusionsAltis® SIS is a safe and effective device for SUI treatment, with satisfaction rates comparable with those of the conventional slings. Persistence or development of urinary urgency influences the results.
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.