Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2012
Feasibility and outcome of vaginal paravaginal repair using the Capio suture-capturing device.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis investigation describes the feasibility and outcome of vaginal paravaginal repair (VPVR) performed using the Capio suture-capturing device.
methodsThis prospective study included 36 women with paravaginal fascial defects, symptomatic stage II to IV anterior vaginal wall prolapse, and uterine prolapse equal or more than stage 2. VPVR was performed using the Capio device. In addition, anterior colporrhaphy, posterior colporrhaphy, and vaginal hysterectomy were performed.
resultsThe mean time required to perform the VPVR was 12.9 min (range, 11-18 min). The median blood loss during the VPVR was 35 ml (range, 20-65 ml). There were no major intraoperative complications. At 2-year follow-up, the rate of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse (stage ≥ 2) was 8.6%.
conclusionsVPVR performed using the Capio device is associated with minimal dissection of the tissues, blood loss, and operating time and has low recurrence rate at 2-year follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21932135What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.