Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2016
A new method for the evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse in women using a three-dimensional optic scanner.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisModern classifications of pelvic floor movements are based on pelvic floor assessment in a static midsagittal plane. This study presents a new and potentially useful 3D noninvasive tool for studying pelvic floor mobility in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-four patients with POP [grade ≥3 using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system] and 30 healthy volunteers (controls) at rest and during Valsalva maneuver were scanned using an Artec™ 3D optic portable scanner and 3D pelvic floor models were generated. We calculated the volume of the prolapsed vaginal wall using dynamic prolapse increment (DPI), which is defined as an increase in prolapse volume from rest to its maximal Valsalva probe [DPI = (Vval - Vrest) / Vrest %)].
resultsIn the control group, the average DPI was 28 % (16-51 %). As the DPI in patients with POP varied widely, two subgroups were identified. In the first subgroup, the average DPI was 290 % (125-437 %), whereas it was only 48.8 % (41-55 %) in the second subgroup. Prolapse volume in subgroup 1 was not due to the most prominent component of POP but was induced by enlargement of the prolapsed vaginal wall from other components, such as a cystocele or enterocele, which was evident only during the 3D procedure and could not be validated by the POP-Q system.
conclusionsIn addition to existing methods, 3D modelling is a useful tool for evaluating pelvic floor mobility. Further investigation of the pelvic floor dynamic features in women is necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26782100What 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.