↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
Title
Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012975
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Mowat, Declan Maher, Kaven Baessler, Corina Christmann-Schmid, Nir Haya, Christopher Maher

Abstract

Posterior vaginal wall prolapse (also known as 'posterior compartment prolapse') can cause a sensation of bulge in the vagina along with symptoms of obstructed defecation and sexual dysfunction. Interventions for prevention and conservative management include lifestyle measures, pelvic floor muscle training, and pessary use. We conducted this review to assess the surgical management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse. To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of any surgical intervention compared with another surgical intervention for management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched April 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted researchers in the field. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse. We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were subjective awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for any prolapse, and objectively determined recurrent posterior wall prolapse. We identified 10 RCTs evaluating 1099 women. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of evidence quality were risk of bias (associated mainly with performance, detection, and attrition biases) and imprecision (associated with small overall sample sizes and low event rates).Transanal repair versus transvaginal repair (four RCTs; n = 191; six months' to four years' follow-up)Awareness of prolapse is probably more common after the transanal approach (risk ratio (RR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 7.70; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). If 10% of women are aware of prolapse after transvaginal repair, between 10% and 79% are likely to be aware after transanal repair.Repeat surgery for any prolapse: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.88; 1 RCT; n = 57; low-quality evidence).Recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse is probably more likely after transanal repair (RR 4.12, 95% CI 1.56 to 10.88; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I2 = 35%; moderate-quality evidence). If 10% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after transvaginal repair, between 16% and 100% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after transanal repair.Postoperative obstructed defecation is probably more likely with transanal repair (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.79; 3 RCTs; n = 113; I2 = 10%; low-quality evidence).Postoperative dyspareunia: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 2 RCTs; n = 80; I2 = 5%; moderate-quality evidence).Postoperative complications: Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of any differences between groups (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.94 to 13.54; 3 RCTs; n = 135; I2 = 37%; low-quality evidence). If 2% of women have complications after transvaginal repair, then between 2% and 21% are likely to have complications after transanal repair.Evidence shows no clear differences between groups in operating time (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 1.49, 95% CI -11.83 to 8.84; 3 RCTs; n = 137; I2 = 90%; very low-quality evidence).Biological graft versus native tissue repairEvidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.62; 2 RCTs; n = 181; I2 = 13%; moderate-quality evidence) or repeat surgery for any prolapse (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.97; 2 RCTs; n = 271; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of a difference in rates of recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.01; 3 RCTs; n = 377; I2 = 6%; moderate-quality evidence); if 13% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after native tissue repair, between 4% and 13% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after biological graft. Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of postoperative obstructed defecation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 2 RCTs; n = 172; I2 = 42%; moderate-quality evidence) or postoperative dyspareunia (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.25; 2 RCTs; n = 152; I2 = 74%; low-quality evidence). Postoperative complications were more common with biological repair (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.72; 3 RCTs; n = 448; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence).Other comparisonsSingle RCTs compared site-specific vaginal repair versus midline fascial plication (n = 74), absorbable graft versus native tissue repair (n = 132), synthetic graft versus native tissue repair (n = 191), and levator ani plication versus midline fascial plication (n = 52). Data were scanty, and evidence was insufficient to show any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of any of these interventions. The mesh exposure rate in the synthetic group compared with the native tissue group was 7%. Transvaginal repair may be more effective than transanal repair for posterior wall prolapse in preventing recurrence of prolapse, in the light of both objective and subjective measures. However, data on adverse effects were scanty. Evidence was insufficient to permit any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of other types of surgery. Evidence does not support the utilisation of any mesh or graft materials at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market may limit the generalisability of our findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 154 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 12%
Other 17 11%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 34 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 43 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 February 2021.
All research outputs
#2,048,227
of 17,367,552 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,711
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,890
of 284,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,367,552 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.