Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32577789›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020

Surgical approach, complications, and reoperation rates of combined rectal and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Shannon L Wallace, Raveen Syan, Ekene A Enemchukwu, Kavita Mishra, Eric R Sokol, Brooke Gurland

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shannon L WallaceDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. shanwall@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-9593
Raveen SyanDepartment of Urology, Division of Female Urology, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Ekene A EnemchukwuDepartment of Urology, Division of Female Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Kavita MishraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Eric R SokolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Brooke GurlandDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Stanford University · USStanford Medicine · USUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOur primary objective was to determine rectal prolapse (RP) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) reoperation rates and postoperative < 30-day complications after combined RP and POP surgery at a single institution.

methodsThis was an IRB-approved retrospective cohort study of all female patients who received combined RP and POP surgery at a single tertiary care center from 2008 to 2019. Recurrence was defined as the need for subsequent repeat RP or POP surgery at any point after the index surgery. Surgical complications were separated into Clavien-Dindo classes.

resultsSixty-three patients were identified, and 18.3% (12/63) had < 30-day complications (55% Clavien-Dindo grade 1; 27% Clavien-Dindo grade 2; 18% Clavien-Dindo grade 4). Of patients undergoing combined abdominal RP and POP repair, no postoperative < 30-day complications were noted in the MIS group compared to 37.5% of those patients in the laparotomy group (p < 0.01). Overall, in those patients who underwent combined RP and POP surgery, the need for subsequent RP surgery for recurrent RP was 14% and the need for subsequent POP surgery for recurrent POP was 4.8% (p = 0.25).

conclusionIn this cohort of women undergoing combined RP and POP surgery, a higher proportion required subsequent RP surgery compared to those requiring subsequent POP surgery, although this was not statistically significant. Almost one-fifth of patients undergoing combined RP and POP surgery experienced a < 30-day surgical complication, regardless of whether the approach was perineal or abdominal. For those patients undergoing abdominal repair, < 30-day complications were more likely in those patients who had a laparotomy compared to those who had a minimally invasive surgery.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseRectal ProlapseFemaleHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRectumReoperationRetrospective StudiesCombined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgeryPelvic organ prolapseRectal prolapseRectopexyRecurrenceSacrocolpopexySurgical complications

Identifiers

PMID32577789
OpenAlexW3037058327

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.