ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
A pilot study to evaluate changes in pelvic floor muscle tone following pelvic organ prolapse surgery using a novel intra-vaginal pressure sensor device.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. 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.
- Measurement of the Vaginal Pressure Profile with the Femfit® and Leakage Events Using a Newly Developed Pad Test during Selected Sports Activities: A Pilot Study.International urogynecology journal · 2025Observational
- Letter to the Editor: Impact of Preoperative Pelvic Floor Muscle Function on the Success of Surgical Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- A novel suturing technique for natural tissue repair in cystocele treatment.BMC women's health · 2024Observational
- Impact of preoperative pelvic floor muscle function on the success of surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPelvic floor muscle weakness is a common cause of pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Surgical repair of prolapse is commonly undertaken; however, the impact on pelvic floor muscle tone is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of anterior and posterior colporrhaphy on pelvic floor activation.
methodsPatients aged under 70 undergoing primary anterior or posterior colporrhaphy were recruited. Intra-vaginal pressure was measured at rest and during pelvic floor contraction using the Femfit® device (an intra-vaginal pressure sensor device [IVPSD]). Peak pressure and mean pressure over 3 s were measured in millimetres of mercury. The pre- and post-operative measurements were compared. The difference between the means was assessed using Cohen's D test, with significance set at p<0.05
resultsA total of 37 patients completed pre- and post-operative analysis, 25 in the anterior colporrhaphy group and 12 in the posterior colporrhaphy group. Anterior colporrhaphy showed no significant change in pelvic floor tone. Change in peak pressure was -1.71mmHg (-5.75 to 2.33; p=0.16) and change in mean pressure was -0.86 mmHg (-4.38 to 2.66; p=0.31). Posterior colporrhaphy showed a significant increase in peak pelvic floor muscle tone of 7.2 mmHg (0.82 to 13.58; p=0.005) and mean pressure of 4.19 mmHg (-0.09 to 8.47; p=0.016).
conclusionsPosterior colporrhaphy significantly improves pelvic floor muscle tone, whereas anterior colporrhaphy does not. Improved understanding of the impact of pelvic floor surgery may guide future management options for other pelvic floor disorders. Further work is needed to confirm the association of this improvement in pelvic floor disorders.
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.