ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
Prospective evaluation of genital hiatus in patients undergoing surgical prolapse repair.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-Hysterectomy Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Current Perspectives and Decision-Making Considerations for Surgical Treatment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Patient Factors Affecting Physicians' Decision to Add Perineoplasty to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: A Quantitative Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Opinions of Gynecologists About Indication and Technique of Perineoplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Significance of Pelvic Floor Hiatus in Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Journal of medical ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisEnlarged genital hiatus (GH) is associated with prolapse recurrence following prolapse repair. Perineorrhaphy is often performed to reduce GH. However, changes in GH between the time of surgery and follow up are poorly understood. Our primary aim was to compare the intra-operative resting GH at the conclusion of surgery with the resting GH 3 months post-operatively in patients who undergo perineorrhaphy. We hypothesized that the intra-operative resting GH would be sustained.
methodsPatients planning apical prolapse surgery were prospectively enrolled. Perineorrhaphy was performed at the surgeon's discretion. GH was measured pre-operatively in clinic, intra-operatively before and after surgery (resting), and 3 months post-operatively (resting and Valsalva).
resultsTwenty-nine perineorrhaphy and 27 no perineorrhaphy patients completed 3-month follow-up. Groups were similar in age (63.9 y, SD 10.4), body mass index (28.3 kg/m
conclusionsSurgeons can be reassured that the intra-operative change in GH resulting from perineorrhaphy is sustained 3 months after surgery and similar to the more commonly measured preoperative to postoperative change in Valsalva GH.
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.