ArticleCaspian journal of internal medicine2022
Clinical outcomes in patients with advanced pelvic prolapse who underwent LeFort surgery or pessary placement- A prospective cohort study.
Article in Caspian journal of internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
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
Background: The aim of the present study was to compare the six-month results in terms of prolapse symptoms in postmenopausal patients with advanced pelvic prolapse (POP) who underwent LeFort colpocleisis surgery or with pessary placement. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 110 older women were enrolled from April 2016 to January 2018. The women were diagnosed with stage III or higher genital prolapse according to the POP quantification (POP-Q) system. The patients were divided into two groups: surgical (LeFort colpocleisis surgery; n=55) and non-surgical (pessary placement, n=55). The study population underwent LeFort colpocleisis surgery or pessary placement in two university clinics (Beheshti or Alzahra Hospitals). All patients completed the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-20 (PFDI-20). The main short-term outcome measurement (six months) was the manifestation of a pelvic prolapse in the groups. Results: The patients had a mean age of 68.98±8.79 years in the non-surgical group and 64.76±7.04 years in the surgical group. The analytic results showed a significant difference between the two groups (P=0.006). After treatment, the prolapse symptoms improved in both groups (p<0.001). However, the total PFDI-20 score did not show any significant differences at the end of the six-month follow- up (P=0.19). Conclusion: Both strategies (pessary placement or LeFort colpocleisis surgery) provide a short-term option for the treatment of older women with stage III or higher POP. The findings of this study could assist with treatment options and allow better guidance for older patients with symptomatic POP in the treatment decision process.
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.