ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
Native-tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with nonabsorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Approach Female Sexual Dysfunction in a Urogynecology Practice.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
- Prolapse Repair Using Non-synthetic Material: What is the Current Standard?Current urology reports · 2019Review
- Repair of recurrent rectocele with posterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable polypropylene mesh-patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Long-term subjective, clinical and sonographic outcomes after native-tissue and mesh-augmented posterior colporrhaphy.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Native Tissue Repairs for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Current urology reports · 2017Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after treatment of isolated primary rectocele in routine health-care settings using native-tissue repair or nonabsorbable mesh.
methodsWe used prospective data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery and included 3988 women with a primary operation for rectocele between 2006 and 2014: 3908 women had native-tissue repair, 80 were operated with nonabsorbable mesh. No concurrent operations were performed. Pre- and perioperative data were collected from doctors and patients. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated 2 and 12 months after the operation. Only validated questionnaires were used.
resultsOne year after native-tissue repair, 77.8 % (76.4-79.6) felt they were cured, which was defined as never or hardly ever feeling genital protrusion; 74.0 % (72.2-75.7) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 84 % (82.8-85.9) reported improvement of symptoms. After mesh repair, 89.8 % (77.8-96.6) felt cured, 69.2 % (54.9-81.3) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 86.0 % (72.1-94.7) felt improvement. No significant differences were found between groups. Organ damage was found in 16 (0.4 %) patients in the native-tissue repair group compared with one (1.3 %) patient in the mesh group [odds ratio (OR) 3.08; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07-20.30]. The rate of de novo dyspareunia after native-tissue repair was 33.1 % (30.4-35.8), comparable with that after mesh repair. The reoperation rate was 1.1 % (0.8-1.5) in both groups.
conclusionMost patients were cured and satisfied after native-tissue repair of the posterior vaginal wall, and the patient-reported outcomes were comparable with results after mesh repair. The risk of serious complications and reoperation were comparable between groups.
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.