Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38416154›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024

Healthcare Resource Utilization Following Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: Impact of Concomitant Rectopexy.

Lannah L Lua-Mailland, Elizabeth E Stanley, Meng Yao, Marie Fidela R Paraiso, Shannon L Wallace, Cecile A Ferrando

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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, 2 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lannah L Lua-MaillandSection of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. lual@ccf.org.ORCID 0000-0002-1705-6209
Elizabeth E StanleySection of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Meng YaoDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Section of Biostatistics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Marie Fidela R ParaisoSection of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Shannon L WallaceSection of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Cecile A FerrandoSection of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Radiation Oncology Institute · USCleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisCombined surgical procedures with sacrocolpopexy (SCP) and rectopexy (RP) are more commonly being performed for treatment of multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. This study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) within 6 weeks following combined surgery (SCP-RP) versus SCP alone (SCP-only). We hypothesized that concomitant RP does not impact HRU.

methodsA retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent minimally invasive SCP from 2017 to 2022 was conducted at a tertiary referral center. Patients were grouped based on the performance of concomitant RP. HRU was defined as a composite of unscheduled office visits, emergency department visits, and readmissions before the 6-week postoperative visit. HRU was compared in the SCP-RP and SCP-only groups. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with HRU.

resultsThere were 144 patients in the SCP-RP group and 405 patients in the SCP-only group. Patient characteristics were similar between the two groups, with the following exceptions: the SCP-RP group was older, more likely to have comorbid conditions, and live >60 miles from the hospital. Of the 549 patients, 183 (33.3%) had ≥1 HRU encounter within 6 weeks after surgery. However, there was no difference between the SCP-RP and SCP-only groups in composite HRU (34.0% vs 33.1%, p = 0.84). The most common reasons for HRU were pain, urinary tract infection symptoms, and wound issues. Concomitant mid-urethral sling was associated with a two-fold increased risk of HRU after surgery.

conclusionsOne in 3 patients undergoing minimally invasive SCP had at least one unanticipated encounter within 6 weeks after surgery. Concomitant RP was not associated with increased postoperative HRU.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPelvic Organ ProlapseAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ReadmissionPostoperative ComplicationsRectumRetrospective StudiesSacrumHealthcare resource utilizationMinimally invasive surgeryPelvic organ prolapseRectal prolapseRectopexySacrocolpopexy

Identifiers

PMID38416154
OpenAlexW4392238999

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.