Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42211969›Full record

ReviewGynecology and pelvic medicine2024

Scoping review of evidence-based postoperative recommendations following urogynecology surgery.

Rosa Carbonell, Eleanor M Schmidt, Sara Cichowski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gynecology and pelvic medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Rosa CarbonellDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Eleanor M SchmidtDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Sara CichowskiDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Most gynecology and urogynecology surgeons recommend restrictions that include pelvic rest as well as activity and lifting restrictions in the immediate postoperative period. The objective of this review is to summarize the literature on these postoperative restrictions and their health outcomes and surgical success. In addition, we aim to give evidence-based recommendations in the key areas of postoperative care. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search to identify studies discussing post-operative restrictions and recommendations after urogynecologic and benign minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Searches were conducted in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library (1996 to 2023). Results: There is limited prospective data evaluating the role of postoperative activity restriction in benign gynecologic surgery or pelvic reconstructive surgery outcomes and long-term data (>12 months data) is even more scarce. Short-term outcomes including patient satisfaction, anatomic success and complications supports less restriction. Current evidence supports early ambulation, screening for postoperative urinary retention and early advancement in diet to return to bowel function. Conclusions: The current evidence does not support postoperative physical activity restrictions following gynecologic surgery, but more research is needed to fully understand the long-term implications of eliminating these restrictions. The next step in optimizing the postoperative recovery period is research looking at an active recovery similar to what is commonly seen in orthopedic surgery.

Indexed as

activityGynecologic surgerypostoperative recoveryrestrictionsurogynecology

Identifiers

PMID42211969
PMCPMC13214599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.