FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2033742090> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2033742090 endingPage "2" @default.
• W2033742090 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2033742090 abstract "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published asecond warning to medical practitioners and patients on“Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement ofSurgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse” in July 2011.Following this, on the advice of legal advisors the researchand ethics committee of one of our hospitals (P.L.D)recommended that no further synthetic mesh be used forany incontinence or prolapse surgery. This recommendationwas a case of “throwing the baby out with the bath water”and was not ratified following further discussion. However,it is an indication of the perfect storm referred to byBrubaker and Shull in this issue of the InternationalUrogynecology Journal [1]. In order to give a range ofopinions we are also publishing in this issue the views ofother well-known gynaecologists on the usage of syntheticgrafts [2, 3].So how did we get to this? Polypropylene syntheticmesh has been used in urogynaecology since the 1960s totreat stress incontinence [4]. However, it was not untilUlmsten and Petros developed the TVT sling with itsadvantages of same-day surgery and less postoperative painand morbidity that the mid-urethral sling became thecommonest stress incontinence operation performed world-wide. This success led to the development of a number ofsimilar slings by many commercial companies. Complica-tions did occur, frequently related to inexperienced trocarpositioning and incorrect placement of tape in the bladder,small bowel or blood vessels. The incidence of polypro-pylene mesh-related complication was low, with a less than1% rate of infection or mesh exposure, although this wasnot the case when non-polypropylene tapes were used,when infection and rejection rates were high. These werethen discontinued, but not until considerable damage hadbeen done.The problem with transvaginal polypropylene mesh wasevident from the beginning. In a prospective randomisedstudy by Julian in 1996 of 24 patients with mesh versusnon-mesh for surgical treatment of recurrent cystocele [5],there was a better anatomical result with no recurrence inthe mesh group but 3 of the 12 patients had mesh exposure.When we reported our 2-year results in 2004, our meshexposure rate was 9% [6]. It was interesting that the resultsof a meta-analysis of recent studies published this year byAbed et al. [7] showed an incidence of 10.3%. Therefore,little progress has been made in this critical area despite theuse of softer, lighter polypropylene meshes.These exposures are often asymptomatic, but maycause symptoms of discharge, bleeding and pain, espe-cially during intercourse, both to the patient and herpartner. Bowel and bladder perforation are rare but occurespecially if these organs have been injured. These meshexposures in most cases require excision of the exposedmesh and vaginal closure, usually under general anaes-thesia as day surgery. In some cases multiple attempts atrepair are required for recurring mesh exposures. Asmesh exposures can occur late, long-term studies(10yearsormore)maybeneededtoknowthetruemesh exposure complication rate. Vaginal exposure of" @default.
• W2033742090 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2033742090 creator A5027291919 @default.
• W2033742090 creator A5027834243 @default.
• W2033742090 date "2011-11-16" @default.
• W2033742090 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2033742090 title "The mesh debate" @default.
• W2033742090 cites W1481007515 @default.
• W2033742090 cites W1973086227 @default.
• W2033742090 cites W2022002655 @default.
• W2033742090 cites W2033706944 @default.
• W2033742090 cites W2060570186 @default.
• W2033742090 cites W2082747714 @default.
• W2033742090 cites W2091903888 @default.
• W2033742090 cites W2152198468 @default.
• W2033742090 cites W2949370727 @default.
• W2033742090 cites W2048925503 @default.
• W2033742090 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1597-7" @default.
• W2033742090 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22086262" @default.
• W2033742090 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2033742090 type Work @default.
• W2033742090 sameAs 2033742090 @default.
• W2033742090 citedByCount "13" @default.
• W2033742090 countsByYear W20337420902012 @default.
• W2033742090 countsByYear W20337420902013 @default.
• W2033742090 countsByYear W20337420902014 @default.
• W2033742090 countsByYear W20337420902015 @default.
• W2033742090 countsByYear W20337420902016 @default.
• W2033742090 countsByYear W20337420902017 @default.
• W2033742090 countsByYear W20337420902019 @default.
• W2033742090 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2033742090 hasAuthorship W2033742090A5027291919 @default.
• W2033742090 hasAuthorship W2033742090A5027834243 @default.
• W2033742090 hasBestOaLocation W20337420901 @default.
• W2033742090 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2033742090 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2033742090 hasConceptScore W2033742090C61434518 @default.
• W2033742090 hasConceptScore W2033742090C71924100 @default.
• W2033742090 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2033742090 hasLocation W20337420901 @default.
• W2033742090 hasLocation W20337420902 @default.
• W2033742090 hasOpenAccess W2033742090 @default.
• W2033742090 hasPrimaryLocation W20337420901 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W1946354434 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W2016374247 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W2019250753 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W2102644969 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W2370073206 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W2922159997 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W2967287585 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W3208701539 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W4313346385 @default.
• W2033742090 hasRelatedWork W4317816533 @default.
• W2033742090 hasVolume "23" @default.
• W2033742090 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2033742090 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2033742090 magId "2033742090" @default.
• W2033742090 workType "article" @default.