ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2012
Long-term outcomes after native tissue vs. biological graft-augmented repair in the posterior compartment.
Article 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 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Surgical interventions for posterior compartment prolapse and obstructed defecation symptoms: a systematic review with clinical practice recommendations.International urogynecology journal · 2019Pooled it
- Where to for pelvic organ prolapse treatment after the FDA pronouncements? A systematic review of the recent literature.International urogynecology journal · 2013Pooled it
- Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Prolapse Repair Using Non-synthetic Material: What is the Current Standard?Current urology reports · 2019Review
- Transvaginal rectocele repair with human dermal allograft interposition and bilateral sacrospinous fixation with a minimum eight-year follow-up.BMC urology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe aimed to compare the outcomes of native tissue vs. biological graft-augmented repair in the posterior compartment. We hypothesized that the addition of graft would result in superior anatomic and functional outcomes.
methodsA retrospective review of posterior repairs between 2001 and 2008 was performed to compare the anatomic and functional outcomes between native tissue and graft-augmented techniques. Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests were used. Power calculation determined that 32 subjects were needed in each group.
resultsOne hundred twenty-four native tissue and 69 graft-augmented repairs were performed with a median follow-up of 35.8 months (range, 6 to 157 months). Anatomic success was similar for native tissue vs. graft (Bp < -1, 86% vs. 80% and Bp ≤ 0, 97% vs. 97%; all p > 0.05). Postoperative splinting and incomplete evacuation was greater in the graft group (splinting, 85% vs. 68%; p = 0.04 and incomplete evacuation, 85% vs. 64%; p = 0.03).
conclusionLong-term success of posterior repair is high. Graft augmentation does not appear to improve anatomic or functional outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22113260What 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.