ArticleScientific reports2023
Non-invasive biomechanical assessment of the prolapsed vaginal wall: an explorative pilot study on cutometry and indentometry.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical assessment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and associated treatment strategies is currently limited to anatomical and subjective outcome measures, which have limited reproducibility and do not include functional properties of vaginal tissue. The objective of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of using cutometry and indentometry for non-invasive biomechanical assessment of the vaginal wall in women with POP. Both techniques were applied on the vaginal wall of 20 women indicated for surgical correction of POP stage two or higher. The primary outcome was the measurement success rate. Measurements were considered successful if biomechanical parameters were generated after a maximum of three attempts. Secondary outcomes included acquisition time, number of attempts to obtain a successful measurement, and biomechanical parameters. Measurements were successfully performed on the anterior vaginal wall of 12 women with cystocele and the posterior vaginal wall of eight women with rectocele. The success rate was 100% for both techniques and acquisition time was under 1 minute for all 20 measurements. Tissue fast elasticity of the posterior vaginal wall (rectocele) was significantly higher than that of the anterior vaginal wall (cystocele) and negatively correlated with age (r = - 0.57, P < 0.05). In women with POP, measuring the biomechanical properties of the vaginal wall using cutometry and indentometry is technically feasible. Objective evaluation of biomechanical properties may help to understand the pathophysiology behind surgical outcomes, providing an opportunity for the identification of patients at risk for (recurrent) prolapse, and individualized treatment decisions.
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.