SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2023
The impact of surgeon operative volume on risk of reoperation within 5 years of mid-urethral sling: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisUndesired outcomes after mid-urethral sling (MUS), such as mesh exposure or surgical failure, can necessitate further procedures. The objective of this review is to evaluate the association between surgeon operative volume and the risk of reoperation after MUS.
methodsEligible studies were selected through an electronic literature search from database and references of the studies included. Databases were searched for original studies reporting on the MUS procedure, reoperation, and operative volume. Random effects models were used to estimate the pooled OR of reoperation according to surgeon volume. Outcomes were divided into two categories: mesh removal and/or revision and subsequent surgery for treatment of SUI.
resultsA total of 2,304 abstracts were screened, and 51 studies were assessed through full-text reading. Seven studies were included in the systematic review. High-volume and low-volume surgeons were defined differently in various studies. The odds ratio of the mesh removal/revision procedure was 1.26 (95%CI 1.03-1.53) among those who received their surgery from a low-volume surgeon compared with those who received their surgery from a high-volume surgeon as defined by the studies. The odds ratio of repeated incontinence procedures was 1.18 (95% CI 1.01-1.37).
conclusionsThe odds of a repeat incontinence procedure appear higher if the surgery is performed by a low-volume surgeon, although these results need to be interpreted with caution as the definition of low-volume vs high-volume surgeon varied between studies. As such, operative volume should be included in surgical reporting, and future research should utilize surgical volume as either a continuous exposure or a standardized value of low- vs high-volume MUS surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36538044What 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.