ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021
Urinary continence after high urogenital sinus repair conducted with posterior prone approach: electromyography-uroflowmetric assessment.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of High Urogenital Sinus in Adults: A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Understanding female urinary continence-lessons from complications of female urethral surgery.Asian journal of urology · 2024Article
- Urogenital sinus malformation: From development to management.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to present the results of urinary continence assessment objectively with electromyography (EMG)-uroflowmetry after high urogenital sinus (HUGS) repair with posterior prone approach without division of rectum.
methodsThe records of patients who underwent HUGS repair via posterior prone approach between January 2005 and July 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Incontinence, dysuria, hesitation, and straining during urination were evaluated during the clinical follow-up. Dysfunctional voiding scoring system was used as a questionnaire. Patients were re-evaluated with EMG-uroflowmetry in terms of voiding volume and pattern, voiding time, maximum flow rate, average flow rate, maximum flow time, and post-voiding residual volume.
resultsSeven patients with HUGS were treated with a posterior prone approach. The median age of the patients was 18 months (8-21 months). The median UGS length was 4.4 cm (3.6-5.5 cm), urethral length was 1.1 cm (1.0-1.5 cm), and vaginal length was 4.9 cm (4.1-5.1 cm). No urination or defecation problems were described by the patients or their parents. When the results of the dysfunctional voiding scoring systems questionnaire were analyzed, results scored 7 (range 5-8). EMG-uroflowmetric test graphics of the patients showed normal flow curves without plateau, intermittency or irregularity. Pelvic EMG assessment was normal in all patients.
conclusionEMG-uroflowmetry has shown objectively that urinary continence and normal voiding pattern are preserved after HUGS repair with posterior prone approach without division of rectum.
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.