Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41473924›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Morbidity in Elderly Women Undergoing Pelvic Floor Reconstruction.

Kay T Win, Yahia Refaee, Jaydip Dasgupta, Bivas Biswas, Bhawana Purwar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Kay T WinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, GBR.
Yahia RefaeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, GBR.
Jaydip DasguptaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, GBR.
Bivas BiswasDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, GBR.
Bhawana PurwarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPelvic floor reconstruction (PFR) in elderly women remains underutilised due to perceived surgical risk. With increasing life expectancy and functional demands, it is essential to evaluate contemporary outcomes in this population. This study aimed to review the perioperative morbidity and short-term outcomes of PFR in women aged ≥70 years and to contextualise results against recognised clinical benchmarks.

methodsWe conducted a single-centre retrospective cohort review of all women aged ≥70 years who underwent PFR at Royal Derby Hospital (RDH) between September 2022 and August 2024 (n=86). Patient demographics, comorbidities, risk factors, type of procedure, complications, and recurrence within one year were analysed. Functional outcomes were assessed using patient-reported symptom status informed by International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) documentation, with analysis focused on completion rates and categorical postoperative symptom outcomes. Complication rates were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and contextualised against national benchmark data to evaluate the quality of care and surgical safety. Statistical analyses were descriptive and exploratory.

resultsThe mean age was 77.3±5.2 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.8±4.3 kg/m², with 36% (n=31) classified as overweight. Most patients were multiparous (median parity 3, range 1-7). Hypertension (68.6%, n=59), constipation (45.3%, n=39), musculoskeletal disorders (38.4%, n=33), diabetes (32.6%, n=28), respiratory disease (27.9%, n=24), cardiac disease (25.6%, n=22), endocrine disorders (16.3%, n=14 ), and mental problems (10.5%, n=9 ) were the most prevalent comorbidities. Combined procedures, such as vaginal hysterectomy with anterior/posterior repair ± sacrospinous fixation, were performed in 84.9% of cases (n=73), while 15.1% of cases (n=13) involved isolated procedures, including four cases of colpocleisis in patients with multiple comorbidities and no requirement for sexual function. No intraoperative complications occurred. Postoperative morbidity was low: Urinary or wound infection occurred in 4.6% (95% CI 1.8-11.4%), readmission within 30 days in 4.6% (95% CI 1.8-11.4%), and ileus, failed trial without catheter (TWOC), vaginal adhesion, and persistent postoperative pain each in 1.1% (95% CI 0.2-6.3%). No cases required return to theatre or resulted in death (95% CI 0.0-4.3%). Symptomatic improvement was reported by 72.1% (95% CI 61.8-80.5%, n=62) of patients, while 17.4% (95% CI 10.9-26.8%, n=15) had persistent and 10.5% (95% CI 5.6-18.7%, n=9) developed new urinary urgency or frequency. One unrelated death occurred within five months after surgery.

conclusionPFR in women aged ≥70 years appears to be safe and associated with favourable short-term morbidity and patient-reported outcomes in appropriately selected, well-optimised patients when performed in a structured multidisciplinary urogynaecology service. Observed complication rates were low and comparable to national benchmarks, supporting surgical management following individualised assessment and optimisation. However, given the exploratory design and limited follow-up, results should be interpreted cautiously, and prospective multicentre studies incorporating frailty assessment and longer-term follow-up are required to evaluate durability, recurrence, and quality-of-life outcomes.

Indexed as

elderly womenmorbiditypelvic floor reconstructionpelvic organ prolapsequality improvementurogynaecology

Identifiers

PMID41473924
PMCPMC12747774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.