ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Posterior repair versus no posterior repair for posterior vaginal wall prolapse resolved under simulated apical support at the time of native tissue apical suspension.
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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an adjuvant posterior repair (PR) on treatment outcomes of native tissue apical suspension. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 194 women who underwent iliococcygeus or uterosacral ligament suspension with or without PR for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POPQ) stage 2-4 posterior vaginal wall prolapse that resolved under simulated preoperative apical support and who completed a 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was composite surgical failure defined as the presence of vaginal bulge symptoms, descent of the vaginal apex more than one-third of the way into the vaginal canal (apical recurrence), anterior or posterior vaginal wall descent beyond the hymen (anterior or posterior recurrence), or retreatment for prolapse. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcomes, perioperative outcomes, obstructed defecation, dyspareunia, and adverse events.
resultsOne hundred thirty women underwent concomitant PR, and 64 did not. Surgical failure rates were significantly higher in the group not receiving PR than in the group receiving PR (29.7% vs. 12.3%, p < 0.01). Anatomically, anterior and apical recurrence was more common in the group not receiving PR (p < 0.05). Concomitant PR was associated with a longer operating time and more blood loss (p < 0.01). However, there were few adverse events related to PR, and the rates of de novo obstructed defecation and dyspareunia were low in both groups, with no significant difference between the groups.
conclusionConcomitant PR at the time of native tissue apical suspension may reduce the recurrence of symptomatic anterior and apical prolapse without significant morbidity.
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.