ReviewNeurourology and urodynamics2022
Surgical anatomy of the mid-vagina.
Review in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of intravaginal and interstitial brachytherapy in cervical cancer after inadvertent hysterectomy: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Drug and therapeutic intravaginal delivery targeting diseases in the female reproductive tract: A mathematical modeling perspective.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2025Review
- Article
- Extracellular Matrix-Based and Electrospun Scaffolding Systems for Vaginal Reconstruction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Surgical anatomy of the mid-vagina.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe mid-vagina (MV) represents Level II of the vagina. The surgical anatomy of the MV has not been recently subject to a comprehensive examination and description. MV surgery involving anterior and posterior colporrhaphy represents a key part of surgery for a majority of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
methodsLiterature review and surgical observations of many aspects of the MV were performed including MV length and width; MV shape; immediate relationships; histological analysis; anterior and posterior MV prolapse assessment and anterior MV surgical aspects. Unpublished pre- and postoperative quantitative data on 300 women undergoing posterior vaginal compartment repairs are presented.
resultsThe MV runs from the lower limit of the vaginal vault (VV) to the hymen. Its length is a mean of 5 cm. Its shape in section overall is a compressed rectangle. Its longitudinal shape is created by its anterior and posterior walls being inverse trapezoid in shape. Histology comprises three layers: (i) mucosa; (ii) muscularis; (iii) adventitia. MV prolapse staging uses pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q). Anterior MV prolapse can be quantitatively assessed using POP-Q while posterior MV prolapse can be assessed with POP-Q or PR-Q. Around 50% of both cystocele and rectocele are due to VV defects. POP will increase anterior MV width and length. Native tissue anterior colporrhaphy is the current conventional repair with mesh disadvantages outweighing advantages. Posteriorly, Level II (MV) defects are far smaller (mean 1.3 cm) than Level I (mean 6.0 cm) and Level III (mean 2.9 cm).
conclusionAn understanding of the surgical anatomy of the MV can assist anterior and posterior colporrhaphy. In particular, if VV support is employed, the Level II component of a posterior repair should be relatively small.
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.