Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32533214›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021

Predictors of delayed postoperative urinary retention after female pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Elisabeth C Sappenfield, Taylor Scutari, David M O'Sullivan, Paul K Tulikangas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Robotic sacrocolpopexy.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
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

4 authors.

Elisabeth C SappenfieldDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hartford Hospital, 85 Seymour St, Suite 525, Hartford, CT, 06102, USA. elisabeth.sappenfield@hhchealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8563-6056
Taylor ScutariDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hartford Hospital, 85 Seymour St, Suite 525, Hartford, CT, 06102, USA.
David M O'SullivanDepartment of Research Administration, Hartford HealthCare, Hartford, CT, USA.
Paul K TulikangasDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hartford Hospital, 85 Seymour St, Suite 525, Hartford, CT, 06102, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisRisk factors can be used to determine what patients will develop delayed postoperative urinary retention after female pelvic reconstructive surgery.

methodsA case-control study was performed including all female pelvic reconstructive surgeries necessitating a voiding trial. All patients passed their previous voiding trial. Cases had an acute encounter for urinary retention. Controls did not have acute postoperative urinary retention. Cases and controls were stratified based on procedure. Demographics, medical/surgical histories, voiding symptoms, urodynamic testing, and intraoperative data were collected. Cases were matched to controls in a 1:3 ratio. Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were used for univariate analyses; logistic regression was used to determine predictors of delayed postoperative urinary retention (DPOUR).

resultsA total of 1219 patients underwent pelvic reconstructive surgery that met eligibility; 51 cases of DPOUR (4.3%) were identified and matched with 153 controls without postoperative urinary retention. Of the procedures performed, 41.2% had prolapse surgery, 10.3% had incontinence surgery, and 48.5% had both prolapse and incontinence surgery. There were no differences between cases and controls in age, race, prior surgery, medical comorbidities, prolapse stage ≥ 3, voiding symptoms, and surgical characteristics. Cases had a lower BMI than controls (p < 0.001). There was no difference in preoperative urodynamic variables. Cases had lower percent voided volume on their last voiding trial than controls (90.2% ± 28.6% vs. 110.7% ± 39.5%, respectively; p = 0.001); however, clinically we consider a voided volume of two-thirds or greater of the instilled volume to be a normal result.

conclusionsDPOUR is an uncommon postoperative event. Demographic and clinical factors and urodynamic findings were unable to predict DPOUR. Percent voided volume on voiding trial was greater in controls.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapsePlastic Surgery ProceduresUrinary Incontinence, StressUrinary RetentionCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansPostoperative ComplicationsUrodynamicsIncontinence surgeryPelvic reconstructive surgeryPostoperative urinary retentionVoiding dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID32533214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.