The incidence of mesh extrusion after vaginal incontinence and pelvic floor prolapse surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The advantages of using synthetic mesh in vaginal reconstructive surgery are significant. However, the concern about extrusion has led many to question its use. We wished to learn the extrusion rates and time to extrusion in patients undergoing vaginal stress incontinence and prolapse surgeries using polypropylene mesh. Materials and methods: Five hundred and seventy six women underwent vaginal reconstructive surgery with synthetic mesh between August 2000 and October 2009 for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence, with or without pelvic organ prolapse repair. 367 patients had at least one year follow-up. Procedures were: pubo-vaginal sling (PVS), PVS and anterior repair, PVS with anterior and/or posterior repairs, and PVS with hysterectomy and anterior and posterior repairs. Time to mesh extrusion was estimated using a survival function curve. Results: Forty-two (11.4%) patients sustained a mesh extrusion. The rate of mesh extrusion was (6.3%) in the PVS group, (14.7%) in the PVS and anterior repair group, (11.1%) in the PVS with anterior and posterior repairs group and (5%) in the PVS with hysterectomy and anterior and posterior repair. Percent extrusion free at one to four years post-op was (91%) and (85%). Conclusion: Our study provides a large series of prolapse cases performed by a single surgeon with follow-up that extends at least one year, with the longest follow-up at eight years. The incidence of long term mesh extrusion needs to be considered with respect to the support advantages of synthetic mesh in planning vaginal reconstructive surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".