ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
The application of MR defecography in assessing bladder and urethral function pre and post-operatively in patients with moderate to severe pelvic organ prolapse.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe objective was to offer imaging-based evidence to analyze the functional changes in the bladder and urethra associated with pelvic floor reconstruction.
methodsThe study included patients with grade II or higher pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The primary analysis involved comparing changes in the function parameters before and after pelvic reconstruction. Secondly, patients were divided into two groups: those who had pelvic floor reconstruction combined with a mid-urethral sling (MUS) and those without MUS. The impact of combining MUS on changes in bladder and urethral functions was then compared.
resultsForty-three patients were included in the study. 5 of the 43 enrolled patients refused postoperative MRD and were excluded from paired analysis. Compared with the preoperative measurements, the urethral length (2.28 cm ± 0.82 cm vs. 1.95 cm ± 0.54 cm) and urethral angle (103.60° ± 65.02° vs. 52.75° ± 27.40°) decreased significantly after surgery. The bladder-urethral angle (97.20° ± 35.10° vs. 134.80° ± 31.27°) and the incidence of bladder funneling (21.05% vs. 44.74%) increased postoperatively. Secondly, 20 patients who had undergone isolated POP repair compared with 18 patients who had undergone POP repair combined with MUS. A statistically significant increase in the incidence of bladder funneling was observed in the isolated POP repair group (20.00% vs. 50.00%, p = 0.047).
conclusionPelvic floor reconstruction with or without a MUS, consistently resulted in significant improvements in the anatomical positions of the pelvic organs within 3-6 months of the surgery. The incidence of bladder funneling increased after surgery indicates that the weakness at the urethro-vesical junction becomes more pronounced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40488864What 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.