ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Versus Conventional Care in Elderly Patients Undergoing Transvaginal Pelvic Floor Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisPelvic organ prolapse is a common condition in older women requiring surgical correction. The benefits of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) have been demonstrated in gynecological procedures, but there are still few data on its use in older patients (aged 60 years and above) undergoing transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction. This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of ERAS compared with conventional perioperative care, specifically in this older population.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized and observational studies comparing ERAS with conventional care in older patients undergoing transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction. Outcomes assessed were time to first intestinal exhaust, ambulation, urinary catheterization duration, hospital stay, operative time, bleeding volume, 30-day readmission, and reoperation rates. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently, and pooled analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
resultsNine studies involving 1,585 patients were included. ERAS significantly reduced time to first intestinal exhaust, ambulation, urinary catheter removal, and postoperative length of stay compared with conventional care. No significant differences were observed in operative duration, intraoperative bleeding, 30-day readmission, or reoperation rates.
conclusionsFor older patients undergoing transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction, ERAS enhances postoperative recovery without sacrificing safety. The need for multicenter randomized studies and standardized protocols remains despite encouraging findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42841933What 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.