ArticleNeurourology and urodynamics2026
Satisfaction and Decisional Regret After Mesh Versus Non-Mesh Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.
Article in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition that can have a significant impact on a woman's quality of life. While surgical success is often measured objectively, patient-centered metrics are equally important.
objectiveThis study investigated satisfaction, decisional regret, and sexual function in patients who underwent POP surgery with or without mesh to better understand how patients define success. STUDY
designThis is a retrospective review of patients who underwent apical POP surgery from 2015 to 2023 at a single institution serving an ethnically diverse community. Demographic data were collected through chart review and surveys conducted via telephone calls. Patient satisfaction and decisional regret were measured with the validated modified Satisfaction with Decision Scale-Decision Regret Scale for pelvic floor disorders. Sexual function after surgery was measured with the validated 6-question Female Sexual Function Index and open-ended sexual health questions. Patients were compared by use of mesh during surgery (e.g., sacrocolpopexy) versus native tissue repair. Fischer's exact test was used to compare categorical variables and t-tests used to compare continuous variables with p < 0.05 as significant.
resultsOf the 250 women contacted who underwent POP surgery between 2015 and 2023, 110 (44%) participated, with a median follow-up of 970 days (IQR 843). Forty (36%) and 70 (64%) patients underwent mesh versus native tissue repair, respectively. There were no significant differences in satisfaction (p = 0.52) and regret (p = 0.83) between mesh and non-mesh groups. Patients who experienced moderate-to-severe decisional regret were significantly more likely to report regret regarding undergoing hysterectomy (p = 0.03) and not having had mesh placed at the time of their POP surgery (p < 0.01), compared to those with mild regret. Fifteen patients (16%) reported sexual health concerns, which were significantly associated with lower satisfaction (p < 0.01).
conclusionsPatients who underwent POP surgery had low regret and high satisfaction with their decision at almost 3 years of follow-up. Regret and satisfaction did not significantly differ based on the use of mesh. Although overall regret was low, open-ended responses revealed nuanced concerns about hysterectomy, mesh, and sexual health, suggesting limitations of current assessment tools. Overall, this study highlights how patient-centered metrics could augment the determination of surgical success and better inform decision-making in patients considering POP surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.