Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36811633›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023

General anesthesia versus regional anesthesia in patients undergoing obliterative vaginal procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.

Rehan Feroz, Jeremy T Gaskins, Vishwa Shah, Jenna Warehime, Stacy M Lenger, Sean Francis, Ankita Gupta

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rehan FerozDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, USA. rehan.feroz@louisville.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9978-1035
Jeremy T GaskinsDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Vishwa ShahDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Jenna WarehimeDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, USA.
Stacy M LengerDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, USA.
Sean FrancisDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, USA.
Ankita GuptaDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women's Health, University of Louisville, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, USA.
University of Louisville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to compare outcomes in patients receiving general versus regional anesthesia when undergoing obliterative vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

methodsObliterative vaginal procedures performed from 2010 to 2020 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Surgeries were categorized into general anesthesia (GA) or regional anesthesia (RA). Rates of reoperation, readmission, operative time, and length of stay were determined. A composite adverse outcome was calculated including any of the following: nonserious or serious adverse events, 30-day readmission, or reoperation. Propensity score-weighted analysis of perioperative outcomes was performed.

resultsThe cohort included 6,951 patients, of whom 6,537 (94%) underwent obliterative vaginal surgery under GA and 414 (6%) received RA. When comparing outcomes under the propensity score-weighted analysis, operative times were shorter (median 96 vs 104 min, p<0.01) in the RA group versus GA. There were no significant differences between composite adverse outcomes (10% vs 12%, p=0.06), or readmission (5% vs 5%, p=0.83) and reoperation rates (1% vs 2%, p=0.12) between the RA and GA groups. Length of stay was shorter in patients receiving GA than in those receiving RA, especially when undergoing concomitant hysterectomy (67% discharged within 1 day in GA vs 45% in RA, p<0.01).

conclusionsComposite adverse outcomes, reoperation rates, and readmission rates were similar in patients who received RA for obliterative vaginal procedures compared with GA. Operative times were shorter in patients receiving RA than in those receiving GA, and length of stay was shorter in patients receiving GA than in those receiving RA.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, ConductionPelvic Organ ProlapseAnesthesia, GeneralFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnesthesia modalityObliterative vaginal proceduresPerioperative outcomes

Identifiers

PMID36811633
OpenAlexW4321482841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.