Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39476292›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2025

Sacrocolpopexy: Alternatives to Mesh Grafts.

Chin Yong, Mooska Raoofi, Marcus Carey

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Chin YongEpworth HealthCare, Suite 6.3, Level 6, 124 Grey Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002, Australia. drchinyong@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9003-9950
Mooska RaoofiEpworth HealthCare, Suite 6.3, Level 6, 124 Grey Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002, Australia.
Marcus CareyEpworth HealthCare, Suite 6.3, Level 6, 124 Grey Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe ongoing pelvic mesh controversy, coupled with a regulatory pause in using pelvic mesh in some countries, has created a need for mesh-free alternatives for sacrocolpopexy (SCP). This article provides an overview of mesh-free alternatives for SCP.

methodsMEDLINE and PubMed searches were conducted to identify studies reporting on autologous and non-autologous biologic grafts for SCP. Identified studies were reviewed by two of the authors (CY and MR).

resultsEmerging evidence on autologous fascia lata (AFL) and rectus sheath (ARS) for SCP is promising, with low donor site morbidity. Non-autologous biologic grafts for SCP are mostly reported to be inferior to mesh.

conclusionsEmerging evidence suggests that AFL and ARS might be safe and effective alternative options to mesh SCP. The main advantages of AFL for SCP over ARS are laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy approaches, and that a larger graft can be safely harvested. The benefits of utilising allografts and xenografts are limited by their reduced durability compared with mesh and patient acceptability.

Indexed as

Fascia LataGynecologic Surgical ProceduresPelvic Organ ProlapseSurgical MeshFemaleHumansLaparoscopyRectus AbdominisAutologous fascia lataAutologous rectus sheathBiologic graftsComplicationsSacrocolpopexySynthetic mesh

Identifiers

PMID39476292

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.