2024-07-022024-07-022020-09-010301-2115https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.06.040https://hdl.handle.net/11452/42689Objective: There has been a heated discussion about mesh materials in urogynecology in recent years. The role of social media in this discussion is critical. This study aims to make a systematic analysis of videos uploaded to YouTube about mesh complications in urogynecology.Study Design: YouTube was searched using specific terms about mesh materials. The primary outcome was the relationship between the video characteristics-which were publisher identity, attitude, the main focus of the video country, and year- and the mesh debate in urogynecology.Results: We analyzed 1128 YouTube videos about mesh complications. There was no distinction between stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse when referring to the mesh material in 79 % of the videos. 35.2 % of the videos were in the News group, 31.2 % were in the Patients group, 19.6 % were in the Doctors group, and 14.0 % were in the Lawyers group. Videos in the News (75.7 %), Patients (92.6 %), and Lawyers (99.4 %) groups mostly had a negative attitude, while videos in the Doctors (48.9 %) group mostly had an informative attitude. News (43.2 %) and Patients (51.2 %) group videos were predominantly from the United Kingdom. However, Lawyers (81.0 %) and Doctors (44.3 %) videos were predominantly from the USA. In the last three years, the news and patients videos have increased by an average of 40 % each year.Conclusion: YouTube has influenced the mesh dilemma with a negative attitude. As long as social media is at the center of this discussion, a healthy outcome cannot be achieved.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessStress urinary-incontinencePelvic organ prolapseSurgical-treatmentMesh complicationsMesh debateSocial mediaYoutubeScience & technologyLife sciences & biomedicineObstetrics & gynecologyReproductive biologyObstetrics & gynecologyReproductive biologyArticle00057303600002214414925210.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.06.040