ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Timing and Technique: Principles of Secondary Repair of Perineal Wound Dehiscence.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPerineal wound breakdown is a rare but important complication following childbirth-related perineal trauma. Though many providers manage wound breakdown via expectant management, the optimal strategy remains debated. In this review, we systematically compile a comprehensive overview of existing data on management of perineal wound dehiscence with emphasis on timing, surgical technique and personnel, outcomes, and considerations to obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS).
methodsOur literature search utilized PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBase databases.
resultsThirteen relevant articles were included in our review. The majority of studies reported resuturing within 2 weeks of diagnosis (11/13), utilizing intraoperative antibiotics (10/13) and polyglactin suture (13/13). Repairs were largely completed in the operating room by an Ob/Gyn; Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery (URPS) subspecialists were specified in two studies. Complete healing occurred in 57.1-92.9% of patients, typically by 3 months postoperatively, but also reported up to 1 year after repair. Dyspareunia was the most common complication (5.6-27.8%). Minor complications included superficial separation (14.3%) and surgical site infection (9.5%). Four studies focused on OASIS, and repair in these settings often required an URPS consultation and was associated with fecal urgency, flatal and/or fecal incontinence (13.6-37.0%).
conclusionsEvidence supports early resuturing within 2 weeks of perineal wound breakdown, demonstrating good short-term outcomes. Optimal management includes intraoperative cephalosporin administration, polyglactin sutures, and URPS consultation, especially if breakdown of OASIS is suspected. Future studies should examine long-term outcomes, such as rates of persistent anal incontinence, and overall patient satisfaction regarding the timing and techniques of perineal laceration repair revision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41165778What 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.