Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29802413›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018

Open sacrocolpopexy and vaginal apical repair: retrospective comparison of success and serious complications.

Rebecca G Rogers, Tracy L Nolen, Alison C Weidner, Holly E Richter, J Eric Jelovsek, Jonathan P Shepherd, Heidi S Harvie, Linda Brubaker, Shawn A Menefee, Deborah Myers and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment Pathways for Prolapse.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2021
    Article
  5. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca G RogersDepartment of Women's Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas, 1301 W 38th Street, Suite 705, Austin, TX, 78756, USA. rebecca.rogers@austin.utexas.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3991-7348
Tracy L NolenRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Alison C WeidnerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Holly E RichterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
J Eric JelovsekObstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Jonathan P ShepherdDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Heidi S HarvieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Linda BrubakerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL, USA.
Shawn A MenefeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA.
Deborah MyersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Yvonne HsuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Joseph I SchafferDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
Dennis WallaceRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Susan F MeikleNorthwest Texas Physician Group, Amarillo, TX, USA.
NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network
Cleveland Clinic · USDuke University · USRTI International · USUniversity of New Mexico · USUniversity of Utah · USBrown University · USKaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Data Coordinating Center Administrative Supplement: ODSS CDE FundingU24HD069031 · NICHD · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI MARIE G GANTZ · 2016 to 2026
$35.8M
Pelvic floor Disorders Network-Data Coordinating CenterU01HD041249 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI WEI, JOHN T · 2001 to 2010
$19.8M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Data Coordinating Center (U01)U01HD069031 · NICHD · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI GANTZ, MARIE G · 2011 to 2015
$19.7M
Perioperative Pelvic Floor Rehab: A Rrandomized TrialU10HD041261 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI RICHTER, HOLLY E · 2001 to 2015
$5.1M
UNC Pelvic Floor Disorders Research CollaborativeU10HD041267 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI VISCO, ANTHONY G · 2001 to 2015
$5.0M
The Pelvic Floor Disorders NetworkU10HD041250 · NICHD · LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO · PI BRUBAKER, LINDA · 2001 to 2015
$3.8M
Pelvic Floor Disorders NetworkU10HD054214 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LUKACZ, EMILY S. · 2006 to 2015
$3.3M
The Cleveland Clinic Clinical SiteU10HD054215 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI BARBER, MATTHEW D · 2006 to 2015
$3.2M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network 2021UG1HD054241 · NICHD · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI David Dwight Rahn · 2016 to 2026
$3.0M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Clinical Sites (UG1)UG1HD069010 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Heidi S Harvie · 2016 to 2026
$3.0M
Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (PFDN) Clinical SiteUG1HD041267 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI NAZEMA Y SIDDIQUI · 2016 to 2026
$2.8M
Pittsburgh Collab Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery ProgramU10HD041263 · NICHD · MAGEE-WOMEN'S RES INST AND FOUNDATION · PI ZYCZYNSKI, HALINA M · 2001 to 2005
$2.3M
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1U10 HD54136Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1U10 HD54214Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1U10 HD54215Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1U10 HD54241Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2U01HD41249Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2U10 HD41250Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2U10 HD41261Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 2U10 HD41267NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD041249NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD069031NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041250NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041261NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041263NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041267NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054136NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054214NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054215NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054241NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069006NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069010NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069013NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069025NICHD NIH HHS U24 HD069031NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD041261NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD041267NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD054241NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD069006NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD069010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisWe compared treatment success and adverse events between women undergoing open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) vs vaginal repair (VAR) using data from women enrolled in one of three multicenter trials. We hypothesized that ASC would result in better outcomes than VAR.

methodsParticipants underwent apical repair of stage 2-4 prolapse. Vaginal repair included uterosacral, sacrospinous, and iliococcygeal suspensions; sacrocolpopexies were via laparotomy. Success was defined as no bothersome bulge symptoms, no prolapse beyond the hymen, and no retreatment up to 24 months. Adverse events were collected at multiple time points. Outcomes were analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects models to obtain valid outcome estimates at specific visit times, accounting for data missing at random. Comparisons were controlled for center, age, body mass index (BMI), initial Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage, baseline scores, prior prolapse repair, and concurrent repairs.

resultsOf women who met inclusion criteria (1022 of 1159 eligibile), 701 underwent vaginal repair. The ASC group (n = 321) was older, more likely white, had prior prolapse repairs, and stage 4 prolapse (all p < 0.05). While POP-Q measurements and symptoms improved in both groups, treatment success was higher in the ASC group [odds ratio (OR) 6.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.45-10.44). The groups did not differ significantly in most questionnaire responses at 12 months and overall improvement in bowel and bladder function. By 24 months, fewer patients had undergone retreatment (2% ASC vs 5% VAR); serious adverse events did not differ significantly through 6 weeks (13% vs 5%, OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9-4.7), and 12 months (26% vs 13%, OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9-2.9), respectively.

conclusionsOpen sacrocolpopexy resulted in more successful prolapse treatment at 2 years.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansPelvic FloorPelvic Organ ProlapsePlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeUterine ProlapseApical repairNative tissue vaginal repairProlapseSacrocolpopexy

Identifiers

PMID29802413
PMCPMC6046257
OpenAlexW2803618015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.