ArticleIrish journal of medical science2025
Presentation and management of urethral erosion caused by mid-urethral sling.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Midurethral Sling Surgery: Impacts on Sexual Function and Approaches to Complications.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Anchor-Related Granulomatous Reaction After Single-Incision Mid-urethral Sling Placement: A Case Report.Cureus · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMid-urethral slings (MUS) have been the standard of care in surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI) internationally. Complications including pain and erosion has led to a temporary "pause" of their use in the UK and Ireland. We report on our experience to date on patient presentation, operative management, and post-operative outcomes in management of MUS erosion.
methodsReview of female patients who had partial MUS removal due to urethral erosion over a 7-year period. Data on patient presentation, operative technique, and post-operative outcomes were collected and collated.
resultsA total of 21 patients were identified. Overall, 66% of patients presented with symptoms of urinary tract infection (UTI). Other presentations include overactive bladder symptoms (52%), recurrent incontinence (42%), or dyspareunia (9%). Some patients presented with a combination of these symptoms. Overall, 9 patients had a trans-obturator tape (TOT), 6 had a trans-vaginal tape (TVT), and 4 had unspecified type of MUS. Two patients had 2 previous MUS insertions. Initial operative management with urethroscopy and laser fragmentation in cases with significant MUS calcification was required in 18% (n = 4) of patients. A total of 86% (n = 18) of patients had urethral erosion that required formal urethral repair and a short period with an indwelling catheter. All patients had resolution of their UTI symptoms post procedure. Fifteen patients required further surgical intervention to manage recurrent incontinence after MUS removal.
conclusionPartial removal of MUS due to urethral erosion improves patient symptoms. However, the majority have recurrence of SUI and require further intervention.
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.