Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41277806›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026

Prolapse recurrence, methods of reoperation, and long-term mesh complications-A nationwide follow-up study.

Olga Wihersaari, Päivi Karjalainen, Anna-Maija Tolppanen, Nina Mattsson, Jyrki Jalkanen, Kari Nieminen

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02716506 (Finnish Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery Survey 2015), which is not on this 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.

NCT02716506 unknown statusnot on this map

Finnish Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery Survey 2015: Incidence, Methods, Complications and Effect on Quality of Life of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Operations in Finland in 2015

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorSociety for Gynecological Surgery in FinlandRan2015 to 2025Enrolled3,515ConditionsPelvic Organ ProlapseArmsPOP surgery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Olga WihersaariDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Nova of Central Finland, Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5884-1919
Päivi KarjalainenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Nova of Central Finland, Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2271-1773
Anna-Maija TolppanenSchool of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9270-9268
Nina MattssonAava Medical Center, Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Jyrki JalkanenTampere University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere, Finland.
Kari NieminenTampere University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere, Finland.

Funding

Emil Aaltosen Säätiö 240226 OSuomen Kulttuurirahasto
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFurther prolapse in the same or a different vaginal compartment is common, particularly following native tissue surgery. This study aims to report the rates of reoperations for prolapse and subjective recurrence after native tissue and mesh-augmented surgeries. Additionally, it seeks to describe the methods of repeat surgery for prolapse and to evaluate long-term mesh complications. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis is a follow-up study of the nationwide cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02716506]) of pelvic organ prolapse surgeries performed in 2015 in Finland. Prolapse recurrence, reoperations and mesh complications were studied utilizing data from patient questionnaires and the national register. Reoperation rates, timing, methods of repeat surgery, and rates of subjective recurrence were compared among native tissue, transvaginal mesh and abdominal mesh surgeries. Predictive factors for reoperation were studied with logistic regression analysis. Mesh-related complications were evaluated after transvaginal and abdominal mesh repair.

resultsThe mean follow-up of 3321 women was 7.4 years, during which 443 (13%) underwent reoperation for prolapse; 13.9% after native tissue, 10.1% after transvaginal mesh, and 12.1% after abdominal mesh repair (p = 0.09). Up to one third of women reported symptoms of vaginal bulging during follow-up, with significantly lower rates after transvaginal mesh surgery at 2- and 5-year follow-ups. The majority of reoperations for prolapse were single-site; anterior or apical repair was most common after native tissue and abdominal mesh surgery, while reoperations after transvaginal repair involved mainly posterior or apical compartments. Mesh was used in 40% of all reoperations. Prolapse surgery involving both posterior and apical compartments was the only factor associated with increased risk for reoperation (aOR 1.95 CI 1.30-2.92). Only 1.6% of women had a surgically treated mesh complication based on the register data, while the rates of patient-reported mesh exposures and mesh-related reoperations were 6.5% and 6.4%, with no significant difference between the two mesh groups.

conclusionsThe long-term risk of reoperation for prolapse was similar after native tissue and mesh-augmented surgery, while the site of reoperation differed based on the type of surgical treatment. Mesh complication rates were similar after transvaginal and abdominal mesh repair, and the majority of mesh exposures did not require surgical treatment.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresPelvic Organ ProlapsePostoperative ComplicationsReoperationSurgical MeshAgedCohort StudiesFemaleFinlandFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedRecurrenceabdominal meshcomplicationlong‐term outcomesnative tissuepelvic organ prolapserecurrencereoperationtransvaginal mesh

Identifiers

PMID41277806
PMCPMC13308995

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.