ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Surgical Management of Pelvic Floor Disorders and the Utility of Preoperative Labs.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Role of Preoperative Diagnostic Testing in Patients Undergoing Uterovaginal Prolapse Repair: A Systematic Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisCurrent national guidelines advise against routine preoperative laboratory testing to assess risk of perioperative events prior to surgery for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs), yet many women undergo unnecessary testing. The primary objective was to determine the clinical utility of preoperative laboratory assessment prior to surgical management of PFDs. Secondary objectives include rates of case cancellation or postponement owing to laboratory abnormalities and factors associated with testing.
methodsA retrospective study was performed of all surgeries within the Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery at a single academic medical center between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2024. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and preoperative laboratory assessments were abstracted from the medical record. Case cancellation or postponement was documented. Group comparisons were performed using Student's t test and Chi-squared and Fisher's exact test for continuous and categorical variables.
resultsDuring the study period, 634 surgeries were performed for PFDs. Four hundred sixty-nine (74%) women had preoperative labs performed. Laboratory abnormalities were rare and did not result in any changes to surgical management. Patients with diabetes mellitus were more likely to have preoperative labs (p = 0.02); otherwise, medical co-morbidities were similar in the two cohorts. Patients who had preoperative labs were more likely to have a hysterectomy (p < 0.001), sacrocolpopexy (p = 0.004), uterosacral ligament suspension (p = 0.001), anterior repair (p < 0.001), and posterior repair (p < 0.001).
conclusionsDespite the majority of patients undergoing preoperative laboratory testing, clinically meaningful abnormalities were rare and did not change surgical management. Policies surrounding preoperative testing should be re-evaluated to reflect current national guidelines.
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.