ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Evaluation of suture material used in anterior colporrhaphy and the risk of recurrence.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation After Failed Sacrocolpopexy: A Case Series.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Continuous Stitches Versus Simple Interrupted Stitches During Anterior Colporrhaphy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Anterior Colporrhaphy and Paravaginal Repair for Anterior Compartment Prolapse: A Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Current techniques used to perform surgery for anterior and posterior vaginal wall prolapse in South Korea.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe wide variety of suture material used in colporrhaphy shows a lack of consensus on the optimal choice. The evidence guiding the choice of suture material is scant. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of rapid versus slowly absorbable suture on risk of recurrence after native tissue anterior colporrhaphy.
methodsThis longitudinal cohort study was performed secondary to a previously published study on pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after the Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy. Data were collected from four Danish databases and corresponding electronic medical records. In this study, women having had anterior colporrhaphy performed were included. Suture materials were divided in three groups: rapid absorbable multifilament suture (RAMuS), rapid absorbable monofilament suture (RAMoS) and slowly absorbable monofilament suture (SAMoS). The main outcome was recurrence of prolapse in the anterior compartment.
resultsA total of 462 women were included in this study. No significant difference in recurrence was found among the three suture groups. However, a non-significant tendency towards a higher risk of recurrence in the RAMoS group [HR 2.14 (0.75-6.10) p = 0.16] compared to the RAMuS group was observed.
conclusionIn this study, the use of rapid absorbable multifilament suture compared to slowly absorbable monofilament suture does not seem to lead to a higher risk of recurrence after anterior colporrhaphy.
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.