ArticleGland surgery2022
Mid-term efficacy of surgical treatments for post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a retrospective study.
Article in Gland surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of Le Fort colpocleisis in the treatment of stage III-IV pelvic organ prolapse.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Influencing factors of recurrence after pelvic organ prolapse surgery and construction of a nomogram risk prediction model.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The surgical treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (PHVP) has been reported in several clinical studies, but mostly are short-term studies. This study aims to explore the mid-term efficacy of surgical treatments for PHVP. Methods: A total of 138 PHVP patients underwent surgery from January 2005 to January 2020 at the Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing. The clinical data of 119 patients who completed follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Both groups of patients are diagnosed Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q) III-IV stage of prolapse, with obvious prolapse-related symptoms and requiring surgical treatment. Among them, pelvic floor reconstruction surgery (RPS) was performed in patients who wanted to retain vaginal function and colpocleisis were used for frail patients who cannot tolerate RPS. We used the POP-Q scores for the objective efficacy evaluation, and use the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7) to evaluate the subjective symptom during follow up. Among them, 61 patients underwent pelvic floor RPS (Group R), and 58 received colpocleisis (Group C). Results: The surgeries in both groups were successfully completed, the median follow-up time after surgery was 4.3 years (0.25-13 years) and 5.3 years (0.33-15 years), respectively; the overall surgical success rate was 86.9% (53/61) and 100% (58/58), respectively; the subjective satisfaction rate was 90.2% (55/61) and 91.4% (53/58), respectively; and the PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores in both groups were significantly improved compared with the preoperative levels (P<0.05). In Group R, 6 cases (9.8%, 6/61) were dissatisfied after surgery; in Group C, 5 cases (8.6%, 5/58) were dissatisfied after surgery. Conclusions: Reconstructive surgery and colpocleisis have a good mid-term effect on PHVP, with good outcome and few complications. The surgeon is expected to ascertain an appropriate surgical procedure based on the characteristics of the patient, the degree and the location of prolapse, in order to achieve the best surgical efficacy and minimize the damage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.