↓ Skip to main content

Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors

Overview of attention for article published in International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
213 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, October 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00192-005-0003-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre Collinet, Franck Belot, Philippe Debodinance, Edouard Ha Duc, Jean-Philippe Lucot, Michel Cosson

Abstract

Prosthetic reinforcement in the surgical repair of pelvic prolapse by the vaginal approach is not devoid of tolerability-related problems such as vaginal erosion. The purposes of our study are to define the risk factors for exposure of the mesh material, to describe advances and to recommend a therapeutic strategy. Two hundred and seventy-seven patients undergoing surgery due to pelvic prolapse with transvaginal mesh technique were included in a continuous, retrospective study between January 2002 and December 2003. Thirty-four cases of mesh exposure were observed within the 2 months following surgery, which represents an incidence of 12.27%. All the patients were medically treated, nine of whom were found to have completely healed during the check-up performed at 2 months. In contrast, 25 patients required partial mesh exeresis. Risk factors of erosion were concomitant hysterectomy [OR = 5.17 (p = 10(-3))] and inverted T colpotomy [OR = 6.06 (p = 10(-2))]. Two technical guidelines can be defined from this study as regards the surgical procedure required in order to limit mesh exposure via the vaginal route. The uterus must be preserved, and the number and extent of colpotomies needed to insert the mesh must be limited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Other 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 40%
Engineering 12 15%
Materials Science 5 6%
Design 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 22 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,659,519
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#340
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,703
of 71,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 71,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them