Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35226144›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2022

Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review.

Stephanie Deblaere, Jan Hauspy, Karen Hansen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Platelet-Rich Plasma and Fractional COInternational urogynecology journal · 2025
    Article
  5. Long-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy with SERATEXInternational urogynecology journal · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Robotic sacrocolpopexy.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2024
    Article
  10. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie DeblaereDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GZA Hospitals, St. Augustinus Hospital, Wilrijk, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium. stephanie.deblaere@uzgent.be.ORCID 0000-0002-3176-2660
Jan HauspyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GZA Hospitals, St. Augustinus Hospital, Wilrijk, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Karen HansenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GZA Hospitals, St. Augustinus Hospital, Wilrijk, Oosterveldlaan 24, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
GZA Ziekenhuizen Campus Sint-Augustinus · BEGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisSacrocolpopexy is considered mainstay treatment for apical or vaginal vault prolapse and is currently most often performed via a minimally invasive approach. Although mesh-related complications after this procedure are uncommon, mesh exposure can have an important impact on the patient's quality of life. Our objective is to perform a literature review on this complication post laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy.

methodsWeb of Science and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant articles published between 2005 and 2021. We retrieved 272 articles of which 83 ultimately were withheld.

resultsMinimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) implies a low risk of mesh exposure, which is currently estimated at 3.5%. Literature however is marked by substantial methodological heterogeneity. Controversy remains in the debate over prevention of mesh exposure after MISC. Performing a concomitant total hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk compared to subtotal hysterectomy or hysteropexy. Treatment of mesh exposure is challenging as guidelines are lacking. Although supported by few prospective data, patients with asymptomatic mesh exposure are managed conservatively. Surgical intervention, preferentially performed by an experienced pelvic surgeon, is indicated in symptomatic patients.

conclusionsMesh exposure is often undiagnosed and remains untreated. There is a gap in evidence exploring risk factors for mesh-related complications and efficient measures for reducing them. Choosing the best treatment option is still difficult. Management should be individualized and optimized at the time of diagnosis. Lack of acknowledgement and experience can result in increased morbidity.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPelvic Organ ProlapseFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansProspective StudiesQuality of LifeSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeVaginaLaparoscopic sacrocolpopexyMesh exposureMesh extrusionProlapse repairRobotic sacrocolpopexy

Identifiers

PMID35226144
OpenAlexW4214598465

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.