ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
Repair of recurrent rectocele with posterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable polypropylene mesh-patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of autologous fat injection as a minimally invasive technique for rectocele repair: a prospective pilot study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- A possible physiological mechanism of rectocele formation in women.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
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 aim of this study was to compare the results of repair of isolated, recurrent, posterior vaginal wall prolapse using standard posterior colporrhaphy versus non-absorbable polypropylene mesh in a routine health care setting.
methodsThis cohort study was based on prospectively collected data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery. All patients operated for recurrent, posterior vaginal wall prolapse in Sweden between 1 January 2006 and 30 October 2016 were included. A total of 433 women underwent posterior colporrhaphy, and 193 were operated using non-absorbable mesh. Data up to 1 year were collected.
resultsThe 1-year patient-reported cure rate was higher for the mesh group compared with the colporrhaphy group, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-4.35], corresponding to a number needed to treat of 9.7. Patient satisfaction (OR = 2.38; CI 1.2-4.97) and improvement (OR = 2.13; CI 1.02-3.82) were higher in the mesh group. However, minor surgeon-reported complications were more frequent with mesh (OR = 2.74; CI 1.51-5.01). Patient-reported complications and re-operations within 12 months were comparable in the two groups.
conclusionsFor patients with isolated rectocele relapse, mesh reinforcement enhances the likelihood of success compared with colporrhaphy at 1-year follow-up. Also, in our study, mesh repair was associated with greater patient satisfaction and improvement of symptoms, but an increase in minor complications. Our study indicates that the benefits of mesh reinforcement may outweigh the risks of this procedure for women with isolated recurrent posterior prolapse.
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.