ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2013
Reattachment of the endopelvic fascia to the apex during anterior colporrhaphy: does the type of suture matter?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current techniques used to perform surgery for anterior and posterior vaginal wall prolapse in South Korea.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2022Article
- FPMRS challenges on behalf of the Collaborative Research in Pelvic Surgery Consortium (CoRPS): managing complicated cases : Series 3: Challenging recurrent prolapse in a medically complicated patient.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Pelvic floor muscle weakness: a risk factor for anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
- Native Tissue Repairs for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Current urology reports · 2017Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe aimed to determine if the use of permanent suture for the apical fixation during traditional anterior colporrhaphy results in improved outcomes compared to delayed absorbable suture.
methodsA retrospective case-control study was performed in patients who underwent traditional non-grafted anterior colporrhaphy with reattachment of the anterior endopelvic fascia to the apex/cervix comparing permanent (group 1) or absorbable suture (group 2). Patients were matched based on age, body mass index, and presenting stage of prolapse. The primary outcome assessed was anterior wall vaginal prolapse recurrence defined as Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) points Aa or Ba ≥ -1 cm. Secondary outcome measures included overall prolapse stage, subjective reporting of satisfaction, and any healing abnormalities or complications resulting from suture type.
resultsA total of 230 patients were reviewed (80 in group 1 and 150 in group 2) and median follow-up was 52 (24-174) weeks. A statistically significant improvement in anterior wall anatomy was seen in group 1 compared to group 2 [(Aa -2.70 ± 0.6 cm vs -2.5 ± 0.75 cm, p = 0.02) and Ba (-2.68 ± 0.65 cm vs -2.51 ± 0.73 cm, p = 0.03), respectively]. Comparing prolapse stage, there were no observed differences between the groups. Exposure of the permanent suture occurred in 12 patients (15 %) and 5 (6.5 %) required suture trimming to treat the exposure.
conclusionsReattachment of endopelvic fascia to the apex at the time of anterior colporrhaphy results in low recurrence rates. Use of permanent suture for apical fixation is associated with improved anatomic correction at the expense of increased suture exposures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.