Transvaginal Mesh-related Complications and the Potential Role of Bacterial Colonization: An Exploratory Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the potential role of transvaginal mesh bacterial colonization in the development of mesh-related complications (MRCs). DESIGN: An observational and exploratory study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center (Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). PATIëNTS: 49 patients indicated for mesh removal and 20 women of whom vaginal tissue was retrieved during prolapse surgery as a reference cohort. INTERVENTIONS: collection of mesh-tissue complex (patient cohort) or vaginal tissue (reference cohort) MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Homogenized samples were used for quantitative microbiological culture. Inflammation and fibrosis were semiquantitatively histologically scored; Gram staining and fluorescence in situ hybridization were used to detect bacteria and bacterial biofilms. Of the 49 patients, 44 samples (90%) were culture positive, with a higher diversity of species and more Gram-negative bacteria and polymicrobial cultures in the MRC cohort than the reference cohort, with mostly staphylococci, streptococci, Actinomyces spp., Cutibacterium acnes, and Escherichia coli. Patients with clinical signs of infection or exposure had the highest bacterial counts. Histology demonstrated moderate to severe inflammation in most samples. Gram staining showed bacteria in 57% of culture-positive samples, and in selected samples, fluorescence in situ hybridization illustrated a polymicrobial biofilm. CONCLUSION: In this study, we observed distinct differences in bacterial numbers and species between patients with MRCs and a reference cohort. Bacteria were observed at the mesh-tissue interface in a biofilm. These results strongly support the potential role of bacterial mesh colonization in the development of MRCs.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".