Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796329›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2024

Impact of childbirth on pelvic floor dysfunction in women who have undergone previous pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aparna Hegde, Markus Huebner, Shaimaa Ibrahim, Salvatore Andrea Mastrolia, Emmanuel David-Montefiore, Adi Y Weintraub

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Thermo-Ablative Fractional COMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Aparna HegdeDepartment of Urogynecology, Cama Hospital, Grant Medical College, Mumbai, India. aparnag.hegde@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5050-1060
Markus HuebnerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Shaimaa IbrahimWhittington Hospital, London, UK.
Salvatore Andrea MastroliaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ospedale Civile Umberto I, Corato, Italy.
Emmanuel David-MontefioreCentre Uro-gynécologique Versoix, rue des Moulins 10, 1290, Versoix, Geneva, Switzerland.
Adi Y WeintraubDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev · ILGrant Medical College and Sir Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy Group of Hospitals · INOspedali Riuniti Umberto I · ITUniversity of Freiburg · DEWhittington Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe aim of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of pregnancy and childbirth (vaginal delivery [VD]) or cesarean section (CS) on the recurrence of pelvic floor disorders in women who had previously undergone pelvic floor reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI), to facilitate future evidence-based counseling.

methodsPubMed, Cochrane, Embase, BJOG, Scopus, etc. were screened, from 1990 to date. Inclusion criteria included cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, and case reports that reported on the primary outcome measure of the review. Exclusion criteria included studies on surgical procedures whose outcomes are unlikely to be impacted by pregnancy and childbirth or are obsolete. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.

resultsSeven papers on midurethral slings (MUS; 181 women in both VD and CS groups respectively) and three papers on different hysteropexy techniques (47 and 29 women in the VD and CS groups respectively), were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was seen between the two groups regarding the recurrence of SUI in women who had previously undergone MUS surgery (OR: 1.18 [0.66, 2.09]; Z = 0.56; p = 0.58) or the recurrence of POP following hysteropexy using various apical suspension procedures (OR: 1.81 [0.04, 80.65]; Z = 0.31; p = 0.76). There are insufficient data to support meta-analyses for individual MUS sub-types or hysteropexy procedures.

conclusionCurrent literature does not demonstrate a protective effect of CS in preventing recurrent SUI in women who had undergone MUS surgery for SUI. When hysteropexy is considered irrespective of the apical suspension procedure employed, the incidence of recurrent POP appears similar after CS and VD.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseSurgery, PlasticUrinary Incontinence, StressCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansParturitionPelvic FloorPregnancyCesarean sectionMode of deliveryPelvic floor disorderPelvic organ prolapseStress incontinenceUrinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID37796329
OpenAlexW4387357003

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.