ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2016
The effect of surgical start time in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Starting late does not increase the risk of post-operative complications in patients undergoing common general surgical procedures.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Postoperative complications and recurrence rates after rectal prolapse surgery versus combined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- A model-based validation study of postoperative complications with considerations on operative timing.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to determine if the surgical start time affects operating room time and the incidence of perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort of 396 women who underwent laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy at a tertiary care center between January 2006 and December 2012. Cases were divided into those with a first, second or third start time. Operating room (OR) time was defined as time the patient entered the room to time out of the room (minutes) and the case time was defined as the period between incision and closure (minutes). Adverse events were defined a priori and also reported using the Clavien-Dindo grading scale. Logistic regression analysis was performed for categorical variables and multiple linear regression analysis for continuous variables.
resultsA total of 145 robotic and 261 conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive sacrocolpopexies were performed. Operating room time data were available for 396 cases. Of the cases, 63.9 % (253 out of 396) had a first start, 32.1 % (127 out of 396) had a second start, and 4 % (16 out of 396) had a third start. Robotic and concomitant rectopexy cases were more likely to be performed as first-start cases and operating room time and case time were longest for first-start cases. However, after adjusting for mode of surgery, concomitant procedures, previous surgeries, BMI, and age, this finding was no longer statistically significant. There was no difference in the rate of perioperative adverse events among first-, and second-/third-start cases.
conclusionSurgical case start time does not appear to be associated with operating time or the incidence of perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
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.