ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024
Comparison Between Anterior-Apical Mesh (Surelift) and Anterior Mesh (Surelift-A) in Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: Surgical and Functional Outcomes at 1-Year 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for Hysteropexy: Does Concomitant Anterior and Posterior Fixation Using a Posterior Approach Route Improve Surgical Outcomes?International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisSurelift is a transvaginal synthetic mesh (TVM) kit that is intended to treat anterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The kit can be configured to use an anterior-apical (Surelift) or anterior (Surelift A) approach. The aims of this study were to evaluate the short-term objective and subjective outcomes of the different approaches at the 1-year follow-up.
methodsFrom June 2018 to April 2021, a total of 280 patients with symptomatic advanced POP (stages III and IV) had surgery with the Surelift or Surelift A. The primary outcome was postoperative de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI), as well as subjective evaluation based on the Urinary Distress Inventory 6 (question 3 score > 1) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire 7, during the 1-year follow-up period. Secondary outcomes measured quality of life, the presence of lower urinary tract symptoms, and complications.
resultsIn total, 265 patients were assessed. Among these, 137 had Surelift, whereas 128 underwent Surelift A with SSF. At 1-year postoperative follow-up, de novo urodynamic stress incontinence occurred more frequently in the Surelift group than in the Surelift-A group (28.8% vs 9.1% respectively, p = 0.012). Additionally, Surelift patients had a higher rate of de novo SUI than Surelift A (33.2 vs 11.4 respectively, p = 0.013). Both study groups experienced improvements in their quality of life indicators.
conclusionsThe Surelift device is a safe and effective technique of treating advanced-stage POP. De novo urine incontinence appears to be more common in the Surelift group than in the Surelift-A group. We found good anatomical outcomes and subjective relief in both study groups, with a low complication rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39425775What 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.