Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41878500›Full record

ArticleCurrent obstetrics and gynecology reports2025

Surgical Approaches to Vaginal Agenesis: The Past, Present and Future.

Elizabeth P Howell, Annika Sinha, Cassandra K Kisby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current obstetrics and gynecology reports, 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

3 authors.

Elizabeth P HowellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, Duke University, 5324 McFarland Drive Suite 310, 27707 Durham, NC, USA.
Annika SinhaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, Duke University, 5324 McFarland Drive Suite 310, 27707 Durham, NC, USA.
Cassandra K KisbyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, Duke University, 5324 McFarland Drive Suite 310, 27707 Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Duke KURe ProgramK12DK100024 · NIDDK · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Cindy Amundsen · 2013 to 2026
$8.4M
Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (K12) - Administrative SupplementK12AR084231 · NIAMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Cindy Amundsen · 2023 to 2026
$2.5M
NIAMS NIH HHS K12 AR084231NIDDK NIH HHS K12 DK100024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose of Review: The goal of this work is to review the most common techniques for surgical vaginoplasty. Specifically, this review delves into the history of surgical approaches to vaginal agenesis, including the landmark studies that first described the approaches we still use today. Next, we describe each of the three most commonly used techniques - the McIndoe, the Vecchietti, and the Davydov - including a review of the major case series published on each technique, and supplemented by medical illustrations. Lastly, we outline the most exciting innovations in the treatment of vaginal agenesis. Recent Findings: The field of vaginal reconstruction is experiencing exciting new growth in the realms of increasingly minimally invasive approaches, tissue engineering, and new graft materials or strategies for neovaginal creation. Summary: Throughout history, there have been numerous approaches to the clinical conundrum of vaginal agenesis. There are pros and cons to each of the three most commonly used techniques. Lastly, innovations in the realm of bioengineering are advancing this field and creating exciting new possibilities for the care of these patients.

Indexed as

DavydovMcIndoeNeovaginaVaginal agenesisVaginoplastyVecchietti

Identifiers

PMID41878500
PMCPMC13008338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.