Are polypropylene mesh implants associated with systemic autoimmune inflammatory syndromes? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The surgical implantation of polypropylene (PP) meshes has been linked to the occurrence of systemic autoimmune disorders. We performed a systematic review to determine whether PP implants for inguinal, ventral hernia or pelvic floor surgery are associated with the development of systemic autoimmune syndromes. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane library, clinicaltrialsregister.eu, clinicaltrails.gov and WHO-ICTR platform. Last search was performed on November 24th 2021. All types of studies reporting systemic inflammatory/autoimmune response in patients having a PP implant for either pelvic floor surgery, ventral or inguinal hernia repair were included. Animal studies, case reports and articles without full text were excluded. We intended to perform a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This study was registered at Prospero (CRD42020220705). RESULTS: Of 2137 records identified, 4 were eligible. Two retrospective matched cohort studies focused on mesh surgery for vaginal prolapse or inguinal hernia compared to hysterectomy and colonoscopy, respectively. One cohort study compared the incidence of systemic conditions in women having urinary incontinence surgery with and without mesh. These reports had a low risk of bias. A meta-analysis showed no association when comparing systemic disease between mesh and control groups. Calculated risk ratio was 0.9 (95% CI 0.82-0.98). The fourth study was a case series with a high risk of bias, with a sample of 714 patients with systemic disease, 40 of whom had PP mesh implanted. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to suggest a causal relationship between being implanted with a PP mesh and the occurrence of autoimmune disorders.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".