Cited by 295Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsHernia repair and managementUterine Myomas and Treatments

Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review

For the Systematic Review Group of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, Abed, Husam, Rahn, David D., Lowenstein, Lior, Balk, Ethan M., Clemons, Jeffrey L., Rogers, Rebecca G.·2011·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis This study describes the incidence, risk factors, and treatments of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia as adverse events following vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse with non-absorbable synthetic and biologic graft materials.Methods A systematic review in Medline of reports published between 1950 and November 2010 on adverse events after vaginal prolapse repairs using graft materials was carried out.Results One hundred ten studies reported on erosions with an overall rate, by meta-analysis, of 10.3%, (95% CI, 9.7 - 10.9%; range, 0 - 29.7%; synthetic, 10.3%; biological, 10.1%). Sixteen studies reported on wound granulation for a rate of 7.8%, (95% CI, 6.4 - 9.5%; range, 0 - 19.1%; synthetic, 6.8%; biological, 9.1%). Dyspareunia was described in 70 studies for a rate of 9.1%, (95% CI, 8.2 - 10.0%; range, 0 - 66.7%; synthetic, 8.9%; biological, 9.6%).Conclusions Erosions, wound granulation, and dyspareunia may occur after vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials, though rates vary widely across studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-011-1384-5

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
For the Systematic Review Group of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, Abed, H., Rahn, D. D., Lowenstein, L., Balk, E. M., Clemons, J. L., & Rogers, R. G.
Affiliations
  • Henry Ford Health (US)
  • Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
  • Tufts Medical Center (US)
  • Madigan Army Medical Center (US)
  • University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center (US)
Corresponding author
Abed, Husam
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2011-03-22
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
789-798
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W2060570186
Cited by
295
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 37
FWCI
4.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
vaginal prolapse repair, wound granulation, dyspareunia, pelvic organ prolapse, adverse events, incidence, risk factors
MeSH terms
Dyspareunia, Female, Granulation Tissue, Humans, Postoperative Complications, Surgical Mesh, Vagina, Incidence, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review