ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
A biomechanically based concept for a stronger obstetric anal sphincter repair.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis study emanates from the ISPP OASIS and fecal incontinence study group at the 2018 annual meeting of the International Society for Pelviperineology (ISPP) in Bucharest, Romania. The aim was to analyze the biomechanical factors leading to the breakdown of anal sphincter repair and to suggest a more robust technique for external anal sphincter (EAS) repair.
methodsOur starting point was what happens to the EAS wound repair site during defecation following EAS repair, with special reference to the process of wound healing.
resultsWe concluded that a graft no more than 1 × 1.5 cm sutured across the EAS tear line would mechanically support the tear line, vastly reduce the internal centrifugal forces acting on it during defecation, thereby giving the wound time to heal. Three different grafts were discussed, autologous, biological, and mesh. Also analyzed were the effects on EAS muscle contractility of overly tight repair and overly loose sphincter repair, the latter occasioned by the tearing out of sutures and repair by secondary intention.
conclusionsWe have analyzed causes of sphincter repair failure, introduced a graft method, preferably autologous, for the prevention thereof and supported ultrasound assessment, rather than the absence of fecal incontinence as the criterion for success of EAS repair. Although based on well-established biomechanical principles, our proposal at this stage remains unproven. Our hope is that these concepts will be challenged, clarified, and tested, preferably in a randomized controlled trial.
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.