ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014
Four-defect repair in women with symptomatic anterior compartment prolapse: a large cohort study.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2014. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heterogeneity in post-intervention prolapse and urinary outcome reporting: a one-year review of the International Urogynecology Journal.International urogynecology journal · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe aimed to collect long-term follow-up data and report on both objective and subjective outcome, including morbidity, reinterventions, and sexual function following four-defect repair (FDR) as surgical correction of symptomatic anterior vaginal wall prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
methodsConsecutive patients who underwent FDR between 1999 and 2005 were included in this study. We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate anatomical and functional outcome by reviewing medical charts and sending validated questionnaires (Urogenital Distress Inventory and Defecatory Distress Inventory) to all patients. We also sent a self-developed, nonvalidated questionnaire to assess sexual function and inform the patient about reinterventions for pelvic floor dysfunction.
resultsTwo hundred and twenty-nine (60 %) of the 381 patients who underwent FDR participated. At a median follow-up of 40 months (range 5-88), 21 % of patients reported bothersome prolapse symptoms, and 11 % reported bothersome SUI. Temporary postoperative urinary retention occurred in 23 %. During follow-up, posterior vaginal wall prolapse was observed in 14 % of patients. Overall surgical reintervention rates were 15 % and 4 % for (all types of) pelvic organ prolapse and SUI, respectively; dyspareunia was reported by 30 %.
conclusionsFunctional cure rates of FDR as surgical treatment for anterior vaginal wall prolapse with or without SUI are satisfying. Nevertheless, given the negative side effects of FDR (urinary retention, high reintervention rate for posterior vaginal wall prolapse, high risk of sexual dysfunction), we question the superiority of FDR over standard anterior colporrhaphy in patients with anterior vaginal wall prolapse only.
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.