ArticleTzu chi medical journal
Comparison of the surgical outcomes between paravaginal repair and anterior colporrhaphy: A retrospective case-control study.
Article in Tzu chi medical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective Comparative Study of EMSella Therapy and Surgical Anterior Colporrhaphy for Urinary Incontinence: Outcomes and Efficacy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Anterior Colporrhaphy and Paravaginal Repair for Anterior Compartment Prolapse: A Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study compared the surgical outcomes of anterior vaginal wall repair (A-repair) and paravaginal repair (PVR) for laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgeries. Materials and Methods: This retrospective case-control study recruited patients who underwent laparoscopic POP surgeries in our hospital from May 1, 2013, to May 31, 2022, using the health insurance surgical code payment system (laparoscopic colpopexy/hysteropexy/cervicopexy: 80025B) in Taiwan. The patients were divided into A-repair (group 1) and PVR (group 2). Patients aged <20 years, without postoperative outcomes, and without baseline characteristics were excluded. Baseline characteristics (age, menopausal status, parity, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension) were collected. The outcome was to compare the changes in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scores (Aa, Ba, and total vaginal length) preoperatively and 1-2 months, 3-6 months, and 1 year postoperatively in the two groups. Results: After exclusion, 23 and 10 patients in A-repair and PVR, respectively, were recruited. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Patients in both groups showed significant improvement in Aa and Ba of POP-Q 1-2 months and 3-6 months postoperatively, except for those in group 2 1 year postoperatively. However, there was no significant difference in postoperative scores between the two groups at 1-2 months, 3-6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. The estimated blood loss did not exhibit a significant difference between the two groups; however, PVR had a longer duration of operation. Conclusion: The surgical outcomes of A-repair and PVR for the anterior compartment were comparable at 1-2 months, 3-6 months, and 1 year postoperatively.
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.