Trial reportChinese medical journal2015
Manometric comparison of anorectal function after posterior vaginal compartment repair with and without mesh.
Trial report in Chinese medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Correlations between Mitofusin 2 Expression in Fibroblasts and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: AnChinese medical journal · 2017Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough repair augmented with mesh has been proved its priority in anatomical and functional recovery after anterior compartment reconstruction, the data about posterior compartment are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare bowel functional outcome of posterior vaginal compartment repair with and without mesh in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
methodsThis was a prospective, double-blind, clinical pilot study of 22 postmenopausal women with symptomatic POP (overall POP-quantification [POP-Q] Stage III-IV) who underwent total pelvic floor reconstruction. Patients were grouped according to the use of mesh for posterior vaginal compartment repair: A mesh group and a nonmesh group. POP-Q stage, the pelvic floor impact questionnaire short form-7 (PFIQ-7) and anorectal manometry were evaluated before and 3 months after surgery. Anatomical success was defined as POP-Q Stage II or less. A t-test was used to compare preoperative with postoperative data in the two groups.
resultsTotally, 17 (71%) were available for the follow-up. POP-Q measurements improved significantly compared to baseline (P < 0.05) in both groups. No recurrence was observed. Subjects in both groups reported improvement in pelvic floor symptoms, and there was no significant difference in the PFIQ-7 score between groups at follow-up (P > 0.05). Compared with baseline, the nonmesh group exhibited a statistically significant decrease in anal residual pressure, a significant increase in the anorectal pressure difference during bowel movement, and a reduced rate of dyssynergia defecation pattern (P < 0.05).
conclusionsProvided there is sufficient support for the anterior wall and apex of vagina with mesh, posterior compartment repair without mesh may be as effective as repair with mesh for anatomical recovery while providing better anorectal motor function.
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.