ReviewAdvances in urology2026
Sacrocolpopexy Using Polyvinylidene Fluoride Mesh: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Advances in urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sacrocolpopexy Using Polyvinylidene Fluoride Mesh: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This review aimed to assess the clinical outcomes and complications of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh in sacrocolpopexy (SCP). Methods: A systematic search was conducted on Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase up to October 2024. All study designs employing PVDF mesh in SCP were included. Demographic features, mesh types, surgical method, surgical outcomes, and mesh exposure, among other outcomes and complications, were extracted by two independent researchers. The registered protocol is available online on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023405734). Results: Out of 319 studies screened, 12 were finally included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, encompassing 1093 female patients who underwent SCP. Four studies employed polypropylene (PP) as the comparator. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) was used by six studies, five adhered to the laparoscopic method and one used both. Meta-analysis indicated pooled prevalence rates close to 0% for mesh exposure, recurrence, sexual dysfunction (SD), and reoperation in the PVDF group; however, small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals diminish the definitive conclusion. The prevalence of urge urinary incontinence (UUI) was 33%, while both stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and Conclusion: No significant differences were found between PVDF mesh and PP. Our findings highlight the need for further robust evidence to indicate the possible differences between PVDF and conventional materials, especially PP.
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.