ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2016
Effect of anesthesia type on perioperative outcomes with a midurethral sling.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2016. 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.
- A retrospective analysis of perioperative complications associated with retropubic tension-free vaginal tape in 960 women.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Mode of anesthesia and major perioperative outcomes associated with vaginal surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Suburethral sling procedures in the United States: complications, readmission, and reoperation.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Costs analysis of surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in a brazilian public hospital, comparing burch and synthetic sling techniques.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThere is no consensus on the most appropriate type of anesthesia for placement of a midurethral sling. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative outcomes for this procedure performed under general anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care.
methodsRetrospective cohort analysis of women undergoing outpatient placement of synthetic retropubic midurethral sling under general anesthesia (n = 141) or monitored anesthesia care (n = 84). Patients undergoing concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was operating room time. Secondary outcomes included surgical and recovery times, cost, discharge home with a catheter, and postoperative pain and/or nausea.
resultsIn the general anesthesia group, both operating room time (mean ± SD, 67.6 ± 13.3 min vs 56.9 ± 11.8 min, p < 0.001) and recovery room time (240.0 ± 69.8 min vs 190.1 ± 78.3 min, p < 0.001) were longer, whereas there was no difference in surgical time (30.0 ± 8.9 min vs 29.0 ± 9.7 min, p = 0.43). Cost was significantly higher in the general anesthesia group ($4,095 ± 715 vs $3,877 ± 777, p = 0.03). There was no difference in rates of bladder perforation (6.4 % vs 11.9 %, p = 0.33). Patients who underwent general anesthesia had higher rates of discharge with a catheter (27.0 % vs 15.8 %, p = 0.04).
conclusionMonitored anesthesia care may offer significant benefits over general anesthesia in women undergoing retropubic midurethral sling, including shorter operating room and recovery times, lower costs, and less voiding dysfunction in the immediate postoperative period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26811113What 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.