Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41793488›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026

Bridging Gaps: Insights from a Rectal Buttonhole Tear Case Series.

Shasindran Ramanujam

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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.

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

1 author.

Shasindran RamanujamDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Penang General Hospital, Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia. dr_shasindran@yahoo.com.my.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-8861-9186

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisObstetric rectal buttonhole tears (ORBT) are isolated rectal mucosal lacerations with intact anal sphincters. These injuries are frequently overlooked during delivery, resulting in delayed diagnosis, rectovaginal fistula formation, and the need for surgical referral.

methodsA descriptive case series was conducted on seven women referred for ORBT repair between X across Y under Z (60,000 deliveries). All patients had intact anal sphincters with confirmed rectal mucosal tears identified at the time of delivery through systematic digital rectal examination and subsequently referred for repair within 24 h of injury. Repairs were performed using a standardized three-layer closure technique by a urogynaecologist within 7 h (median 2 h) of injury. Postoperative outcomes were assessed at 3 months with physical examination and St. Mark's incontinence score. An educational video demonstrating the repair was produced for obstetric practitioner training.

resultsSeven cases of ORBT were identified, with an incidence of 1 in 8571 deliveries (0.012%). All repairs were successful, with no rectovaginal fistula formation or complications. At 3 months, all women demonstrated complete continence (St. Mark's score 0/24).

conclusionsThis series emphasizes the importance of early recognition and structured management of ORBT. A standardized repair technique ensures excellent outcomes and, when combined with video-based training, can equip obstetric practitioners to manage these injuries promptly and reduce the need for surgical referral.

Indexed as

Anal CanalDelivery, ObstetricLacerationsObstetric Labor ComplicationsRectumAdultColorectal Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansPregnancyRectovaginal FistulaTreatment OutcomeDigital rectal examinationObstetric rectal buttonhole tearObstetric traumaRectovaginal fistulaVaginal delivery

Identifiers

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.