ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Mode of anesthesia and major perioperative outcomes associated with vaginal surgery.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. 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.
- Effect of Different Anesthesia Methods on Emergence Agitation and Related Complications in Postoperative Patients with Osteosarcoma.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Trial
- Regional anesthesia for hysterectomies across a large healthcare system: location matters.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Predictors of prolonged admission after outpatient female pelvic reconstructive surgery.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe primary aim was to compare the incidence of major perioperative complications in women undergoing vaginal reconstructive surgery with general, regional, and monitored anesthesia care using a national database. The secondary aim was to compare length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission rates, urinary tract infections, and reoperation rates between anesthesia types. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to study women undergoing vaginal surgery for pelvic floor disorders from 2006 to 2015 via Current Procedural Terminology codes. Demographic and clinical variables were abstracted. The incidence of major perioperative complications was defined as the occurrence of any of the following within 30 days of surgery: death, surgical-site infection, pneumonia, venous thromboembolism, intensive care unit admission, stroke, transfusion, sepsis, and myocardial infarction. Regression analysis was used to estimate the relative risks (RR) associated with anesthesia type for each outcome.
resultsFrom the database, we gathered data on 37,426 women who underwent vaginal reconstructive surgery between 2006 and 2015; 87.2% (n = 32,623) underwent general, 6.9% (n = 2565) regional, and 5.9% (n = 2238) monitored anesthesia care. Major perioperative complications occurred in 560 women (1.5%). Relative to general anesthesia, the adjusted risk of major perioperative complications was not significantly different in those receiving monitored or regional anesthesia [monitored vs. general, adjusted RR 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.20; regional vs. general, adjusted RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.92-1.65]. DISCUSSION: Major perioperative complications in vaginal reconstructive surgery were uncommon, and no differences were observed between monitored, regional, and general anesthesia outcomes.
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.