Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33864476›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021

Postoperative complications and recurrence rates after rectal prolapse surgery versus combined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Shannon L Wallace, Ekene A Enemchukwu, Kavita Mishra, Leila Neshatian, Bertha Chen, Lisa Rogo-Gupta, Eric R Sokol, Brooke H Gurland

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shannon L WallaceWomen's Health Institute, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mailcode A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. wallacs8@ccf.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-9593
Ekene A EnemchukwuDepartment of Urology, Division of Female Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Kavita MishraWomen's Health Institute, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mailcode A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Leila NeshatianDepartment of Gastroenterology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Bertha ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Lisa Rogo-GuptaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Eric R SokolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Brooke H GurlandDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Stanford University · USCleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisOur primary objectives were to compare < 30-day postoperative complications and RP recurrence rates after RP-only surgery and combined surgery. Our secondary objectives were to determine preoperative predictors of < 30-day complications and RP recurrence.

methodsA prospective IRB-approved cohort study was performed at a single tertiary care center from 2017 to 2020. Female patients with symptomatic RP underwent either RP-only surgery or combined surgery based on the discretion of the colorectal and FPMRS surgeons. Primary outcome measures were < 30-day complications separated into Clavien-Dindo (CD) classes and rectal prolapse on physical examination.

resultsSeventy women had RP-only surgery and 45 had combined surgery with a mean follow-up time of 208 days. Sixty-eight percent underwent abdominal RP repair, and 32% underwent perineal RP repair. Twenty percent had one or more complications, 14% in the RP-only group and 29% in the combined surgery group (p = 0.06). On multivariate analysis, combined surgery patients had a 30% increased risk of complications compared to RP-only surgery patients (RR = 1.3). Most of these complications were minor (14/17, 82.4%) and categorized as CD I or II, including urinary retention and UTI. Twelve percent of this cohort had RP recurrence, 11% in the RP-only group and 13% in the combined surgery group (p = 0.76). Preoperative risk factors for RP recurrence included a primary complaint of rectal bleeding (RR 5.5) and reporting stools consistent with Bristol Stool Scale of 1 (RR 2.1).

conclusionPatients undergoing combined RP + POP surgery had a higher risk of complications and equivalent RP recurrence rates compared to patients undergoing RP-only surgery.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseRectal ProlapseCohort StudiesFemaleHumansPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCombined rectal prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse surgeryPelvic organ prolapseRectal prolapseRectopexyRecurrenceSacrocolpopexySurgical complications

Identifiers

PMID33864476
OpenAlexW3155493307

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.