Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42895642›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026

Biological Grafts for the Surgical Management of Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Narrative Overview of the Evolution of Biomaterials.

Marianna Alperin, Pamela Moalli, Eboni Acoff, May Alarab, Sunil Balgobin, Sylvia Botros-Brey, Tamutenda Chidawanyika, Kaylee Ferrara, David Hennes, Adonis Hijaz and 11 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Marianna AlperinDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. malperin@health.ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6004-1803
Pamela MoalliDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Eboni AcoffDepartment of Urology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
May AlarabDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery; Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sunil BalgobinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology & Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Sylvia Botros-BreyDepartment of Urology, Division of Urogynecology & Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Tamutenda ChidawanyikaDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Kaylee FerraraDepartment of Urology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
David HennesThe Ritchie Centre, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Clayton, Australia.
Adonis HijazUrology Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve, University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Moshe GillorDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel and Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Cassandra KisbyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, Duke Health, Durham, NC, USA.
Valentin ManriquezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pelvic Floor Unit, Department of Gynecology, Clinical Hospital University of Chile, Red Salud, Chile.
Luiza MoraisDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Shayanti MukherjeeThe Ritchie Centre, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Clayton, Australia.
Anna RosamiliaPelvic Floor Unit, Monash Health & Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Hannah RuettenWake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
David ShakerUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Karishma TharianiCenter for Urogynecology and Pelvic Health, New Delhi, India.
Stephen WalkerDepartment of Urology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Maria BortoliniDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uterovaginal prolapse (U-POP) affects the lives of millions of women worldwide. This narrative review was performed as part of the Global Consensus on controversies and best practices in the surgical management of U-POP. The committee on augmenting and alternative materials for primary U-POP repair addressed three questions: (1) Is there a preferred material for augmentation of primary uterovaginal prolapse repair? (2) What are the critical outcomes for the assessment of augmented repair? and (3) Could novel biomaterials be used preventatively, to avoid the need for surgical intervention for U-POP? We provide a narrative overview of the evolution of biomaterials used in POP repair, from autologous grafts, allografts and xenografts to synthetic mesh and to the engineering and preclinical validation of next-generation smart biomaterials. Each option available today requires a trade-off. Native-tissue repair avoids graft-related complications, but recurrence remains an important problem for some patients. Permanent synthetic implants provide durable structural support, but can cause material-specific complications. Biological grafts have not consistently improved long-term outcomes. New materials are therefore needed that balance mechanical support, tissue integration, and biologic compatibility. We conclude by focusing the attention of the clinical and scientific communities on the scarcity of rigorous comparative trials and on this unmet need in the field of female pelvic medicine.

Indexed as

Augmented repairGraftsPelvic organ prolapseRegenerationUterine prolapse

Identifiers

PMID42895642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.