Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39713092›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of women's health2024

National Survey on the Management of Genital Prolapse in Italy.

Matteo Frigerio, Andrea Morciano, Marta Barba, Michele Carlo Schiavi, Alice Cola, Elena Cavaliere, Carlo Rappa, Mauro Cervigni, “Young Commission” of the Italian Association of Urological Gynecology and Pelvic Floor (AIUG)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of women's health, 2024. 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

9 authors.

Matteo FrigerioFondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3952-8462
Andrea MorcianoDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Panico Pelvic Floor Center, Pia Fondazione "Cardinale G. Panico", Tricase, Italy.
Marta BarbaFondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7495-7185
Michele Carlo SchiaviDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, "Sandro Pertini" Hospital, Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4149-170X
Alice ColaFondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.
Elena CavaliereDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetric B, Ospedale Della Donna E Del Bambino, Verona, Italy.
Carlo RappaCentro PelviCare "Clinica Villa Angela", Napoli, Italy.
Mauro CervigniDepartment of Urology, Università "la Sapienza", ICOT, Latina, Italy.
“Young Commission” of the Italian Association of Urological Gynecology and Pelvic Floor (AIUG)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Surgical repair is considered the mainstay of genital prolapse management. Several procedures are available both by vaginal and abdominal route, with and without mesh augmentation. The Italian UroGynecology Association (AIUG) promoted this survey with the aim of evaluating current variations in the surgical management of various types of prolapse in different clinical settings and to compare practice amongst practitioners working in high- and medium/low-volume centers. Participants and Methods: The questionnaire examined four contentious areas of contemporary prolapse management. The questionnaire was emailed to the AIUG gynecologist members in Italy in 2023. Results: A total of 104 complete responses were received, resulting in a 6.9% response rate. Native-tissue repair represents the preferred option in most scenarios and was proposed by 76%, 68.3%, 94.2%, and 52.9% of practitioners in the case of primary anterior, uterovaginal, posterior, and vault prolapse respectively. The use of vaginal mesh in these scenarios is very limited. Native tissue repairs in case of recurrent anterior, posterior, or apical recurrent prolapse would be performed only by 37.5%, 47.1%, and 28% of surgeons respectively. In these cases, the use of mesh - by vaginal and abdominal route - increased significantly. Conclusion: This survey showed that in Italy surgical management of genital prolapse is very heterogeneous. Native-tissue repair remains the preferred option, but practitioners tend to lose confidence in mesh-free procedures in case of prolapse recurrence. Despite mesh kits recalls and recommendations, the use of transvaginal implants is still considered an option for prolapse repair.

Indexed as

managementpelvic floorpelvic organ prolapsesurgerysurveyurogynecology

Identifiers

PMID39713092
PMCPMC11662637

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.