Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34087229›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2021

Defining mechanisms of recurrence following apical prolapse repair based on imaging criteria.

Shaniel T Bowen, Pamela A Moalli, Steven D Abramowitch, Mark E Lockhart, Alison C Weidner, Cecile A Ferrando, Charles W Nager, Holly E Richter, Charles R Rardin, Yuko M Komesu and 5 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Chapter 4.5: New Proposed Treatments for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Shaniel T BowenDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Pamela A MoalliDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: moalpa@upmc.edu.
Steven D AbramowitchDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Mark E LockhartDepartment of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Alison C WeidnerDuke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Cecile A FerrandoCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Charles W NagerDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, UC San Diego Health, San Diego, CA.
Holly E RichterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Charles R RardinDivision of Urogyneology, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI.
Yuko M KomesuUniversity of New Mexico, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Heidi S HarvieDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Donna MazloomdoostEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Amaanti SridharBiostatistics and Epidemiology Division, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Marie G GantzBiostatistics and Epidemiology Division, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network
University of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USCleveland Clinic · USNational Institutes of Health · USRTI International · USUC San Diego Health System · USBrown University · USDuke Medical Center · USUniversity of New Mexico · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Data Coordinating Center Administrative Supplement: ODSS CDE FundingU24HD069031 · NICHD · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI MARIE G GANTZ · 2016 to 2026
$35.8M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Data Coordinating Center (U01)U01HD069031 · NICHD · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI GANTZ, MARIE G · 2011 to 2015
$19.7M
Perioperative Pelvic Floor Rehab: A Rrandomized TrialU10HD041261 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI RICHTER, HOLLY E · 2001 to 2015
$5.1M
UNC Pelvic Floor Disorders Research CollaborativeU10HD041267 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI VISCO, ANTHONY G · 2001 to 2015
$5.0M
Training in Biomechanics in Regenerative MedicineT32EB003392 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WOO, SAVIO L-Y. · 2005 to 2020
$4.0M
Pelvic Floor Disorders NetworkU10HD054214 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LUKACZ, EMILY S. · 2006 to 2015
$3.3M
The Cleveland Clinic Clinical SiteU10HD054215 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI BARBER, MATTHEW D · 2006 to 2015
$3.2M
Brown/WIH Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Site (UG1)UG1HD069013 · NICHD · WOMEN AND INFANTS HOSPITAL-RHODE ISLAND · PI Vivian W Sung · 2016 to 2026
$3.1M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Clinical Sites (UG1)UG1HD069010 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Heidi S Harvie · 2016 to 2026
$3.0M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Clinical Site Application: The San Diego PelvicFloor ConsortiumUG1HD054214 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI EMILY S. LUKACZ, Shawn A Menefee · 2016 to 2026
$2.9M
Duke University Medical Center (DUMC) Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (PFDN) Clinical SiteUG1HD041267 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI NAZEMA Y SIDDIQUI · 2016 to 2026
$2.8M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Clinical Sites (U10)U10HD069010 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ARYA, LILY A · 2011 to 2015
$1.7M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB003392NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD069031NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041261NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041267NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054214NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054215NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069006NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069010NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069013NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069025NICHD NIH HHS U24 HD069031NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD041267NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD054214NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD069006NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD069010NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD069013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProlapse recurrence after transvaginal surgical repair is common; however, its mechanisms are ill-defined. A thorough understanding of how and why prolapse repairs fail is needed to address their high rate of anatomic recurrence and to develop novel therapies to overcome defined deficiencies.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify mechanisms and contributors of anatomic recurrence after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (native tissue repair) vs transvaginal mesh (VM) hysteropexy surgery for uterovaginal prolapse. STUDY

designThis multicenter study was conducted in a subset of participants in a randomized clinical trial by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Overall, 94 women with uterovaginal prolapse treated via native tissue repair (n=48) or VM hysteropexy (n=46) underwent pelvic magnetic resonance imaging at rest, maximal strain, and poststrain rest (recovery) 30 to 42 months after surgery. Participants who desired reoperation before 30 to 42 months were imaged earlier to assess the impact of the index surgery. Using a novel 3-dimensional pelvic coordinate system, coregistered midsagittal images were obtained to assess study outcomes. Magnetic resonance imaging-based anatomic recurrence (failure) was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen. The primary outcome was the mechanism of failure (apical descent vs anterior vaginal wall elongation), including the frequency and site of failure. Secondary outcomes included displacement of the vaginal apex and perineal body and change in the length of the anterior wall, posterior wall, vaginal perimeter, and introitus of the vagina from rest to strain and rest to recovery. Group differences in the mechanism, frequency, and site of failure were assessed using the Fisher exact tests, and secondary outcomes were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

resultsOf the 88 participants analyzed, 37 (42%) had recurrent prolapse (VM hysteropexy, 13 of 45 [29%]; native tissue repair, 24 of 43 [56%]). The most common site of failure was the anterior compartment (VM hysteropexy, 38%; native tissue repair, 92%). The primary mechanism of recurrence was apical descent (VM hysteropexy, 85%; native tissue repair, 67%). From rest to strain, failures (vs successes) had greater inferior displacement of the vaginal apex (difference, -12 mm; 95% confidence interval, -19 to -6) and perineal body (difference, -7 mm; 95% confidence interval, -11 to -4) and elongation of the anterior vaginal wall (difference, 12 mm; 95% confidence interval, 8-16) and vaginal introitus (difference, 11 mm; 95% confidence interval, 7-15).

conclusionThe primary mechanism of prolapse recurrence following vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension or VM hysteropexy was apical descent. In addition, greater inferior descent of the vaginal apex and perineal body, lengthening of the anterior vaginal wall, and increased size of the vaginal introitus with strain were associated with anatomic failure. Further studies are needed to provide additional insight into the mechanism by which these factors contribute to anatomic failure.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingTreatment FailureAgedFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansHysterectomy, VaginalImaging, Three-DimensionalMiddle AgedPelvisRecurrenceUterine Prolapsehysteropexymagnetic resonance imagingpelvic organ prolapseprolapse surgerytransvaginal meshvaginal hysterectomy

Identifiers

PMID34087229
PMCPMC8578187
OpenAlexW3164422416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.