Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 23;58:101918. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101918

Table 2.

Description of participants.

Reported previous surgerya Mesh exposure Intervention planned Age (years) POP Parity Index of multiple deprivation decileb
TVT for UI Yes Partial removal 48 No 4 10
TVT for UI Not known Partial removal 75 Yes 1 c
TVT for UI Yes Partial removal 51 No 2 c
TVT for UI Yes Partial removal/awaiting full 65 No 2 8
TVT for UI Yes Partial removal/awaiting full 55 Yes 2 7
TVT for UI Yes Partial removal/awaiting full 66 No 0 5
TVT for UI Yes Partial removal/awaiting full 49 Yes 1 5
TVT for UI Yes Awaiting mesh removal consult 52 Yes 0 7
TVT for UI Not known Awaiting mesh removal consult 59 Yes 4 6
TVTO for UI Yes Removal 62 No 2 8
TVTO for UI Not known Awaiting mesh removal consult 61 Yes 2 4
TVTO for UI Not known Awaiting mesh removal consult 52 Yes 3 7
TVTO for UI No None 78 Yes 3 6
Mixed, including TVT and hysterectomy Not known Awaiting mesh removal consult 72 Yes 2 6
Mixed, including TVT and hysterectomy Yes Awaiting mesh removal consult 49 Yes 1 4
a

This is based on participant reported surgery and we have not correlated with case notes/medical records.

b

IMD ranks neighbourhoods in England from 1 (most deprived area) to 32,844 (least deprived area) based on several indices of deprivation. These are then divided into equal groups to calculate the IMD decile.

c

IMD data not available outside England.