ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
Long-term subjective, clinical and sonographic outcomes after native-tissue and mesh-augmented posterior colporrhaphy.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Urogynecological Consultation Chapter 2.2: Imaging in the Diagnosis of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Trends in Urogynecology-Transvaginal Mesh Surgery in Germany.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisOur primary objective was to describe long-term outcomes after posterior colporrhaphy with and without mesh augmentation.
methodsThis was a retrospective study including 93 patients after posterior colporrhaphy (native tissue in 39 and synthetic mesh augmented in 54). The indication was symptoms of prolapse with clinical posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Mesh augmentation and concomitant prolapse operations were performed at the surgeon's discretion. Patients underwent interview, clinical examination and 4D pelvic floor ultrasound. Imaging analysis was done with the reviewer blinded against all other data. Generalized linear modeling was used to compare groups with logistic regression for binary and linear regression for continuous outcomes.
resultsPatients were seen on average 5.3 years after surgery and described persistent symptoms of prolapse in 32% and of obstructed defecation in 33%. Clinical recurrence (Bp ≥ -1) was seen in 20%, while sonographic recurrence (rectal ampulla descent to ≥ 15 mm below the symphysis pubis) was noted in 12%. A true rectocele was diagnosed in 33% of patients. No major differences in outcomes were found between those who underwent native tissue and those who had a mesh-augmented repair.
conclusionsMesh augmentation was not superior to native tissue posterior colporrhaphy, and both were only moderately effective in eliminating a true rectocele and symptoms of obstructed defecation 5 years after reconstructive surgery.
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.