Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39673618›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2025

Short-Term Complications of Concomitant Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Rectal Prolapse Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Alireza Hadizadeh, Henry H Chill, Angela Leffelman, Claudia Paya-Ten, Cecilia Chang, Roger P Goldberg, Steven D Abramowitch, Ghazaleh Rostaminia

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes of combined versus isolated robotic rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair: A multicentre prospective cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Alireza Hadizadeh *Division of Urogynecology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, 9650 Gross Point Road, Suite 3900, Skokie, IL, 60076, USA. ali1375hadi@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0821-7557
Henry H Chill *Division of Urogynecology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, 9650 Gross Point Road, Suite 3900, Skokie, IL, 60076, USA.
Angela LeffelmanDivision of Urogynecology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, 9650 Gross Point Road, Suite 3900, Skokie, IL, 60076, USA.
Claudia Paya-TenDivision of Urogynecology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, 9650 Gross Point Road, Suite 3900, Skokie, IL, 60076, USA.
Cecilia ChangDivision of Urogynecology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, 9650 Gross Point Road, Suite 3900, Skokie, IL, 60076, USA.
Roger P GoldbergDivision of Urogynecology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, 9650 Gross Point Road, Suite 3900, Skokie, IL, 60076, USA.
Steven D AbramowitchDepartment of Bioengineering and Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Ghazaleh RostaminiaDivision of Urogynecology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, 9650 Gross Point Road, Suite 3900, Skokie, IL, 60076, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to evaluate and compare the short-term postoperative complications of concomitant pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and rectal prolapse repair with isolated apical prolapse repair or rectopexy.

methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed using Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for studies published up to April 2024. Studies included were retrospective case-control studies, clinical cohort studies, and randomized clinical trials comparing short-term complications between concomitant apical and rectal prolapse repairs versus isolated repairs.

resultsA total of seven studies, encompassing 16,471 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 843 patients underwent concomitant surgery, 7,808 underwent apical prolapse repair alone, and 7,820 underwent rectopexy alone. The meta-analysis revealed no significant increase in the overall complication rate for the concomitant group compared with the apical prolapse alone (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.56, 1.09; p = 0.14; I

conclusionConcomitant apical and rectal prolapse repair does not significantly increase the risk of short-term postoperative complications compared with isolated repairs. This approach appears safe and feasible, suggesting that combined surgeries might offer a comprehensive treatment for patients with multicompartmental prolapse without elevating operative risks.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresPelvic Organ ProlapsePostoperative ComplicationsRectal ProlapseFemaleHumansConcomitant surgeryPelvic organ prolapseRectal prolapseShort-term complications

Identifiers

PMID39673618

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.