Medium‐term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polivinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: A matched control study
Aim To compare 2‐year outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) either with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or hybrid polypropylene containing a resorbable polyglecaprone (PP+ PG) mesh. Materials and methods Retrospective audit on 105 consecutive patients undergoing LSCP a with PVDF‐mesh (DynaMe...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Neurourology and urodynamics 2019-09, Vol.38 (7), p.1874-1882 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1882 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 1874 |
| container_title | Neurourology and urodynamics |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Callewaert, Geertje Housmans, Susanne Cattani, Laura Pacquée, Stefaan D'Hoore, André Wyndaele, Jan Aa, Frank Deprest, Jan |
| description | Aim
To compare 2‐year outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) either with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or hybrid polypropylene containing a resorbable polyglecaprone (PP+ PG) mesh.
Materials and methods
Retrospective audit on 105 consecutive patients undergoing LSCP a with PVDF‐mesh (DynaMesh, FEG Textiltechniken), matched by prolapse stage and cervicopexy or vault suspension to 105 controls undergoing LSCP with a hybrid PP + PG‐mesh (Ultrapro, Ethicon). Patients are part of an ongoing prospective study. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGIC), the coprimary variable was failure rate at the vault (≤1 cm). Other outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications within 3 months categorized by the Clavien‐Dindo classification, reinterventions, graft‐related complications (GRCs) and functional outcomes. All assessments were performed by an independent assessor. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) number and percent as appropriate, the Mann‐Whitney U, χ2, or Fisher exact were used for comparison.
Results
Patient satisfaction in the PVDF group, as measured with the PGIC, was high (90.9% PGIC, ≥4) as well as was the anatomical success (97.3%) at a follow‐up of 26 months. These outcomes were comparable to those of PP + PG‐patients (84.8% PGIC, ≥4; 94.9% anatomical success). There were five patients (2.4%) with Dindo‐III or higher complications and three patients had GRCs (1.5%), without differences between mesh type. Level‐II posterior defects (Bp ≥ −1) were less likely in PVDF patients (34.1% vs 50% for PP + PG‐patients; P = .003). Women in the PVDF group also were less bothered by prolapse (7.5% vs 26.4%; P = .001), yet they complained more of constipation (15.0% vs 9.0%; P = .01).
Conclusion
There were no differences in patient satisfaction and anatomical outcomes after LSCP either with PVDF or PP + PG mesh. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/nau.24083 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2255465942</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2255465942</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3533-8cd35781e7305f2eed09d70f1e57c830854f8c2769f7c4a74eec5311460031e13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kctu1TAQhi0EoofCghdAltjA4rS-xgm7o6pcpAIbuo5cZ9LjyomDHQPZ9RF4DV6LJ2EOKSyQWPn2zafx_IQ85eyEMyZOR1tOhGK1vEc2XAu2rYwx98mGGSm3QlXmiDzK-YYxRFTzkBxJLhrGjdyQH--h82X4eft9hjTQWGYXB6Cxp8FONsXs4uQdzdal6GKY4gTfFlqyH6_pFIP_4scl-A5GoH0oMeGW2kxRgtXQ0TlSS_fLFT4c-OU6gLNTisjbcb3C07SEg2GAvH9Fd3Sws9tjsYvjnGKgeS7d8pg86G3I8ORuPSaXr88_nb3dXnx88-5sd7F1UuN3a9dJbWoORjLdC4CONZ1hPQdtXC1ZrVVfO2GqpjdOWaMAnJacq4oxyYHLY_Ji9WJfnwvkuR18dhCCHSGW3Aqhtap0owSiz_9Bb2JJI3aHlMHhKy0VUi9XCkeYc4K-nZIfbFpaztpDfi3m1_7OD9lnd8ZyNUD3l_wTGAKnK_DVB1j-b2o_7C5X5S_DhajR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2277334534</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Medium‐term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polivinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: A matched control study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Callewaert, Geertje ; Housmans, Susanne ; Cattani, Laura ; Pacquée, Stefaan ; D'Hoore, André ; Wyndaele, Jan ; Aa, Frank ; Deprest, Jan</creator><creatorcontrib>Callewaert, Geertje ; Housmans, Susanne ; Cattani, Laura ; Pacquée, Stefaan ; D'Hoore, André ; Wyndaele, Jan ; Aa, Frank ; Deprest, Jan</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
To compare 2‐year outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) either with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or hybrid polypropylene containing a resorbable polyglecaprone (PP+ PG) mesh.
Materials and methods
Retrospective audit on 105 consecutive patients undergoing LSCP a with PVDF‐mesh (DynaMesh, FEG Textiltechniken), matched by prolapse stage and cervicopexy or vault suspension to 105 controls undergoing LSCP with a hybrid PP + PG‐mesh (Ultrapro, Ethicon). Patients are part of an ongoing prospective study. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGIC), the coprimary variable was failure rate at the vault (≤1 cm). Other outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications within 3 months categorized by the Clavien‐Dindo classification, reinterventions, graft‐related complications (GRCs) and functional outcomes. All assessments were performed by an independent assessor. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) number and percent as appropriate, the Mann‐Whitney U, χ2, or Fisher exact were used for comparison.
Results
Patient satisfaction in the PVDF group, as measured with the PGIC, was high (90.9% PGIC, ≥4) as well as was the anatomical success (97.3%) at a follow‐up of 26 months. These outcomes were comparable to those of PP + PG‐patients (84.8% PGIC, ≥4; 94.9% anatomical success). There were five patients (2.4%) with Dindo‐III or higher complications and three patients had GRCs (1.5%), without differences between mesh type. Level‐II posterior defects (Bp ≥ −1) were less likely in PVDF patients (34.1% vs 50% for PP + PG‐patients; P = .003). Women in the PVDF group also were less bothered by prolapse (7.5% vs 26.4%; P = .001), yet they complained more of constipation (15.0% vs 9.0%; P = .01).
Conclusion
There were no differences in patient satisfaction and anatomical outcomes after LSCP either with PVDF or PP + PG mesh.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0733-2467</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6777</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/nau.24083</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31290173</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Constipation ; Constipation - etiology ; Female ; Fluorides ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Laparoscopy - adverse effects ; Middle Aged ; Patient satisfaction ; pelvic organ prolapse ; Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery ; Polypropylene ; Polypropylenes ; Polyvinyls ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Retrospective Studies ; sacrocolpopexy ; Surgical mesh ; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects ; Treatment Outcome ; vault prolapse</subject><ispartof>Neurourology and urodynamics, 2019-09, Vol.38 (7), p.1874-1882</ispartof><rights>2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3533-8cd35781e7305f2eed09d70f1e57c830854f8c2769f7c4a74eec5311460031e13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3533-8cd35781e7305f2eed09d70f1e57c830854f8c2769f7c4a74eec5311460031e13</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9460-7668 ; 0000-0002-4617-3666 ; 0000-0003-0516-4007 ; 0000-0001-5148-4883 ; 0000-0002-4920-945X ; 0000-0002-6978-809X ; 0000-0001-5232-3619</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fnau.24083$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fnau.24083$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31290173$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Callewaert, Geertje</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Housmans, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cattani, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pacquée, Stefaan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Hoore, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wyndaele, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aa, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deprest, Jan</creatorcontrib><title>Medium‐term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polivinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: A matched control study</title><title>Neurourology and urodynamics</title><addtitle>Neurourol Urodyn</addtitle><description>Aim
To compare 2‐year outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) either with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or hybrid polypropylene containing a resorbable polyglecaprone (PP+ PG) mesh.
Materials and methods
Retrospective audit on 105 consecutive patients undergoing LSCP a with PVDF‐mesh (DynaMesh, FEG Textiltechniken), matched by prolapse stage and cervicopexy or vault suspension to 105 controls undergoing LSCP with a hybrid PP + PG‐mesh (Ultrapro, Ethicon). Patients are part of an ongoing prospective study. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGIC), the coprimary variable was failure rate at the vault (≤1 cm). Other outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications within 3 months categorized by the Clavien‐Dindo classification, reinterventions, graft‐related complications (GRCs) and functional outcomes. All assessments were performed by an independent assessor. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) number and percent as appropriate, the Mann‐Whitney U, χ2, or Fisher exact were used for comparison.
Results
Patient satisfaction in the PVDF group, as measured with the PGIC, was high (90.9% PGIC, ≥4) as well as was the anatomical success (97.3%) at a follow‐up of 26 months. These outcomes were comparable to those of PP + PG‐patients (84.8% PGIC, ≥4; 94.9% anatomical success). There were five patients (2.4%) with Dindo‐III or higher complications and three patients had GRCs (1.5%), without differences between mesh type. Level‐II posterior defects (Bp ≥ −1) were less likely in PVDF patients (34.1% vs 50% for PP + PG‐patients; P = .003). Women in the PVDF group also were less bothered by prolapse (7.5% vs 26.4%; P = .001), yet they complained more of constipation (15.0% vs 9.0%; P = .01).
Conclusion
There were no differences in patient satisfaction and anatomical outcomes after LSCP either with PVDF or PP + PG mesh.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Constipation</subject><subject>Constipation - etiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluorides</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>pelvic organ prolapse</subject><subject>Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery</subject><subject>Polypropylene</subject><subject>Polypropylenes</subject><subject>Polyvinyls</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>sacrocolpopexy</subject><subject>Surgical mesh</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>vault prolapse</subject><issn>0733-2467</issn><issn>1520-6777</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kctu1TAQhi0EoofCghdAltjA4rS-xgm7o6pcpAIbuo5cZ9LjyomDHQPZ9RF4DV6LJ2EOKSyQWPn2zafx_IQ85eyEMyZOR1tOhGK1vEc2XAu2rYwx98mGGSm3QlXmiDzK-YYxRFTzkBxJLhrGjdyQH--h82X4eft9hjTQWGYXB6Cxp8FONsXs4uQdzdal6GKY4gTfFlqyH6_pFIP_4scl-A5GoH0oMeGW2kxRgtXQ0TlSS_fLFT4c-OU6gLNTisjbcb3C07SEg2GAvH9Fd3Sws9tjsYvjnGKgeS7d8pg86G3I8ORuPSaXr88_nb3dXnx88-5sd7F1UuN3a9dJbWoORjLdC4CONZ1hPQdtXC1ZrVVfO2GqpjdOWaMAnJacq4oxyYHLY_Ji9WJfnwvkuR18dhCCHSGW3Aqhtap0owSiz_9Bb2JJI3aHlMHhKy0VUi9XCkeYc4K-nZIfbFpaztpDfi3m1_7OD9lnd8ZyNUD3l_wTGAKnK_DVB1j-b2o_7C5X5S_DhajR</recordid><startdate>201909</startdate><enddate>201909</enddate><creator>Callewaert, Geertje</creator><creator>Housmans, Susanne</creator><creator>Cattani, Laura</creator><creator>Pacquée, Stefaan</creator><creator>D'Hoore, André</creator><creator>Wyndaele, Jan</creator><creator>Aa, Frank</creator><creator>Deprest, Jan</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9460-7668</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4617-3666</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0516-4007</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5148-4883</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4920-945X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6978-809X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5232-3619</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201909</creationdate><title>Medium‐term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polivinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: A matched control study</title><author>Callewaert, Geertje ; Housmans, Susanne ; Cattani, Laura ; Pacquée, Stefaan ; D'Hoore, André ; Wyndaele, Jan ; Aa, Frank ; Deprest, Jan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3533-8cd35781e7305f2eed09d70f1e57c830854f8c2769f7c4a74eec5311460031e13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Constipation</topic><topic>Constipation - etiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluorides</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>pelvic organ prolapse</topic><topic>Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery</topic><topic>Polypropylene</topic><topic>Polypropylenes</topic><topic>Polyvinyls</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>sacrocolpopexy</topic><topic>Surgical mesh</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>vault prolapse</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Callewaert, Geertje</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Housmans, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cattani, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pacquée, Stefaan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D'Hoore, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wyndaele, Jan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aa, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deprest, Jan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neurourology and urodynamics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Callewaert, Geertje</au><au>Housmans, Susanne</au><au>Cattani, Laura</au><au>Pacquée, Stefaan</au><au>D'Hoore, André</au><au>Wyndaele, Jan</au><au>Aa, Frank</au><au>Deprest, Jan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Medium‐term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polivinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: A matched control study</atitle><jtitle>Neurourology and urodynamics</jtitle><addtitle>Neurourol Urodyn</addtitle><date>2019-09</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1874</spage><epage>1882</epage><pages>1874-1882</pages><issn>0733-2467</issn><eissn>1520-6777</eissn><abstract>Aim
To compare 2‐year outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) either with polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or hybrid polypropylene containing a resorbable polyglecaprone (PP+ PG) mesh.
Materials and methods
Retrospective audit on 105 consecutive patients undergoing LSCP a with PVDF‐mesh (DynaMesh, FEG Textiltechniken), matched by prolapse stage and cervicopexy or vault suspension to 105 controls undergoing LSCP with a hybrid PP + PG‐mesh (Ultrapro, Ethicon). Patients are part of an ongoing prospective study. The primary outcome measure was the Patient Global Impression of Change score (PGIC), the coprimary variable was failure rate at the vault (≤1 cm). Other outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications within 3 months categorized by the Clavien‐Dindo classification, reinterventions, graft‐related complications (GRCs) and functional outcomes. All assessments were performed by an independent assessor. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) number and percent as appropriate, the Mann‐Whitney U, χ2, or Fisher exact were used for comparison.
Results
Patient satisfaction in the PVDF group, as measured with the PGIC, was high (90.9% PGIC, ≥4) as well as was the anatomical success (97.3%) at a follow‐up of 26 months. These outcomes were comparable to those of PP + PG‐patients (84.8% PGIC, ≥4; 94.9% anatomical success). There were five patients (2.4%) with Dindo‐III or higher complications and three patients had GRCs (1.5%), without differences between mesh type. Level‐II posterior defects (Bp ≥ −1) were less likely in PVDF patients (34.1% vs 50% for PP + PG‐patients; P = .003). Women in the PVDF group also were less bothered by prolapse (7.5% vs 26.4%; P = .001), yet they complained more of constipation (15.0% vs 9.0%; P = .01).
Conclusion
There were no differences in patient satisfaction and anatomical outcomes after LSCP either with PVDF or PP + PG mesh.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>31290173</pmid><doi>10.1002/nau.24083</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9460-7668</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4617-3666</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0516-4007</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5148-4883</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4920-945X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6978-809X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5232-3619</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0733-2467 |
| ispartof | Neurourology and urodynamics, 2019-09, Vol.38 (7), p.1874-1882 |
| issn | 0733-2467 1520-6777 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2255465942 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Aged Constipation Constipation - etiology Female Fluorides Humans Laparoscopy Laparoscopy - adverse effects Middle Aged Patient satisfaction pelvic organ prolapse Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery Polypropylene Polypropylenes Polyvinyls Postoperative Complications - etiology Retrospective Studies sacrocolpopexy Surgical mesh Surgical Mesh - adverse effects Treatment Outcome vault prolapse |
| title | Medium‐term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using polivinylidene fluoride as compared to a hybrid polyglecaprone and polypropylene mesh: A matched control study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T17%3A45%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Medium%E2%80%90term%20outcome%20of%20laparoscopic%20sacrocolpopexy%20using%20polivinylidene%20fluoride%20as%20compared%20to%20a%20hybrid%20polyglecaprone%20and%20polypropylene%20mesh:%20A%20matched%20control%20study&rft.jtitle=Neurourology%20and%20urodynamics&rft.au=Callewaert,%20Geertje&rft.date=2019-09&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1874&rft.epage=1882&rft.pages=1874-1882&rft.issn=0733-2467&rft.eissn=1520-6777&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/nau.24083&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2255465942%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2277334534&rft_id=info:pmid/31290173&rfr_iscdi=true |