ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
The impact of prior prolapse repairs on surgical outcomes with minimally invasive sacral colpopexy.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo determine whether prior prolapse repair has an impact on operative time, surgical complications, and prolapse recurrence with minimally invasive sacral colpopexy (MISC).
methodsThis was a retrospective study of all laparoscopic and robotic MISC procedures performed from January 2009 to July 2014 at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Patient demographics, clinical and surgical data were compared in women who underwent MISC for initial repair versus those undergoing MISC for recurrence after prior prolapse surgery. Our primary outcome was operating room (OR) time (skin incision to closure) using linear regression. Logistic regression compared complications (a composite variable considered present if any major complication occurred) and prolapse recurrence (any POP-Q point ≥0 or retreatment).
resultsOf 816 subjects, the mean age was 59.6 ± 8.7, with mean BMI 27.0 ± 3.0 in a primarily Caucasian population (97.8%). Subjects had predominantly POP-Q stage III prolapse (69.9%), and 21.3% reported prior prolapse repair. OR time was 205.0 ± 69.0 min. Prior prolapse repair did not impact OR time (p = 0.25) after adjusting for age, concomitant procedures, POP-Q measurements, changes in OR personnel, case order in the day, and preoperative stress incontinence. Complications occurred in 15.8% but were not impacted by prior prolapse repair (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.53-1.67) after adjusting for potential confounders. During a median follow-up of 31 weeks, 7.8% had recurrence with no impact from prior prolapse surgery (OR = 1.557, 95% CI = 0.67-3.64) after adjusting for potential confounders.
conclusionsWe were unable to demonstrate increased OR time, complications, or prolapse recurrence for MISC based on history of prior prolapse repair. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the lack of difference in prolapse recurrence rates.
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.