Morbidity and functional mid-term outcomes using the Prolift pelvic floor repair systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We assess midterm morbidity and functional outcomes using the Prolift (Gynecare/Ethicon, Somerville, NJ) system and identify potential related risk factors. The Prolift mesh system to treat genital prolapse was introduced in 2005. It was withdrawn from the market in early 2013 after rising doubts about safety. METHODS: Over a 7-year period, we retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 112 consecutive patients who underwent the Prolift procedure since 2006. Intraoperative and postoperative complications, anatomical and functional outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 49.5 months (range: 16-85). The mean age was 64.7 ± 10.9 years (range: 40-86). Of the 112 patients, 74 patients had stage 3 (66.1%) and 8 patients had stage 4 (7.14%) vaginal prolapse. Prolift surgery was performed for pro-lapse recurrence for 26 patients (23.2%). Total mesh was used in 32 patients (29%), an isolated anterior mesh in 57 patients (51%) and an isolated posterior mesh in 23 patients (21%). Concomitant surgical procedures were performed for 44 patients (39.3%). Overall, 72% (18/25) of the complications were managed medically. We reported a failure rate of 8% (n = 9) occurring after a median follow-up of 9.5 months (range: 1-45). Among the 64 patients who had preoperative sexual activity (57.1%), de novo dyspareunia occurred in 9 patients (16.07%). We extracted predictive factors concerning failure, complications and sexuality. CONCLUSION: Despite its market withdrawal, the Prolift system was associated with good midterm anatomic outcomes and few severe complications. Long-term follow-up data are still lacking, but surgeons and patients may be reassured.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".