↓ Skip to main content

To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Women's Health, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery
Published in
International Journal of Women's Health, April 2015
DOI 10.2147/ijwh.s71236
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Dällenbach

Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major health issue with a lifetime risk of undergoing at least one surgical intervention estimated at close to 10%. In the 1990s, the risk of reoperation after primary standard vaginal procedure was estimated to be as high as 30% to 50%. In order to reduce the risk of relapse, gynecological surgeons started to use mesh implants in pelvic organ reconstructive surgery with the emergence of new complications. Recent studies have nevertheless shown that the risk of POP recurrence requiring reoperation is lower than previously estimated, being closer to 10% rather than 30%. The development of mesh surgery - actively promoted by the marketing industry - was tremendous during the past decade, and preceded any studies supporting its benefit for our patients. Randomized trials comparing the use of mesh to native tissue repair in POP surgery have now shown better anatomical but similar functional outcomes, and meshes are associated with more complications, in particular for transvaginal mesh implants. POP is not a life-threatening condition, but a functional problem that impairs quality of life for women. The old adage "primum non nocere" is particularly appropriate when dealing with this condition which requires no treatment when asymptomatic. It is currently admitted that a certain degree of POP is physiological with aging when situated above the landmark of the hymen. Treatment should be individualized and the use of mesh needs to be selective and appropriate. Mesh implants are probably an important tool in pelvic reconstructive surgery, but the ideal implant has yet to be found. The indications for its use still require caution and discernment. This review explores the reasons behind the introduction of mesh augmentation in POP surgery, and aims to clarify the risks, benefits, and the recognized indications for its use.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Other 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 24 30%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 59%
Engineering 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 9 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,148,040
of 13,786,654 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#187
of 534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,829
of 229,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,786,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 229,117 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.