Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34100975›Full record

Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2022

Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for vaginal mesh attachment during sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.

Christl Reisenauer, Jürgen Andress, Birgitt Schoenfisch, Markus Huebner, Sara Yvonne Brucker, Andrea Lippkowski, Kathrin Beilecke, Juliane Marschke, Ralf Tunn

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. At the Scrub Sink: Minimally Invasive Sacrocolopexy.Urogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christl ReisenauerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. christl.reisenauer@med.uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9676-5395
Jürgen AndressDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Birgitt SchoenfischDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Markus HuebnerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Sara Yvonne BruckerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Tuebingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Andrea LippkowskiDepartment of Urogynecology, German Pelvic Floor Centre, St. Hedwigs Hospital, Große Hamburger Straße 5-11, 10115, Berlin, Germany.
Kathrin BeileckeDepartment of Urogynecology, German Pelvic Floor Centre, St. Hedwigs Hospital, Große Hamburger Straße 5-11, 10115, Berlin, Germany.
Juliane MarschkeDepartment of Urogynecology, German Pelvic Floor Centre, St. Hedwigs Hospital, Große Hamburger Straße 5-11, 10115, Berlin, Germany.
Ralf TunnDepartment of Urogynecology, German Pelvic Floor Centre, St. Hedwigs Hospital, Große Hamburger Straße 5-11, 10115, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe purpose of the study was to analyze anatomical and functional outcomes after sacrocolpopexy (SCP) for vaginal vault prolapse pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) II-III by random use of absorbable (Vicryl) and non-absorbable sutures (Ethibond) for vaginal mesh fixation.

methodsThis study was designed as a two-center randomized controlled study (RCT). The primary objective was to evaluate the anatomical outcome. Success was defined when the vaginal apex (point C; POPQ) did not descend more than 50% of the total vaginal length (tvl) during Valsalva. Patients completed a pelvic examination incorporating the POPQ and questionnaires (the German pelvic floor questionnaire and the PISQ-12 questionnaire) at baseline and 6 months postsurgery. Perioperative adverse events (AE) were recorded. Sample size calculations, based on a 10% non-inferiority limit required 100 participants per group, with power = 90%.

resultsIn 190 out of 195 women (ETH group n = 96; VIC group n = 94) anatomical success was achieved. The relative risk of anatomical success failure in the VIC group versus the ETH group was 0.69, with a 95% confidence interval 0.12-4.02. The change in the symptom scores did not differ significantly between the ETH and the VIC group. In the ETH group, three suture penetrations into the vagina were observed, and none in the VIC group 6 months postoperatively.

conclusionsAnatomical success after SCP for vaginal vault prolapse POPQ II-III is not affected by suture type for vaginal monofilament mesh attachment. Moreover, we did not see any differences in functional outcomes between the two groups. Three suture penetrations into the vagina were observed in the ETH group, and none in the VIC group 6 months postoperatively.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseSurgical MeshFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansSuturesTreatment OutcomeVaginaAutonomous nerve preservationBraided suturesEthibondSacrocolpopexyVaginal vault prolapseVicryl

Identifiers

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.