| Title |
Native-tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with nonabsorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-016-3072-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lene Duch Madsen, Emil Nüssler, Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel, Susanne Greisen, Karl Møller Bek, Marianne Glavind-Kristensen |
| Abstract |
We evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after treatment of isolated primary rectocele in routine health-care settings using native-tissue repair or nonabsorbable mesh. We used prospective data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery and included 3988 women with a primary operation for rectocele between 2006 and 2014: 3908 women had native-tissue repair, 80 were operated with nonabsorbable mesh. No concurrent operations were performed. Pre- and perioperative data were collected from doctors and patients. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated 2 and 12 months after the operation. Only validated questionnaires were used. One year after native-tissue repair, 77.8 % (76.4-79.6) felt they were cured, which was defined as never or hardly ever feeling genital protrusion; 74.0 % (72.2-75.7) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 84 % (82.8-85.9) reported improvement of symptoms. After mesh repair, 89.8 % (77.8-96.6) felt cured, 69.2 % (54.9-81.3) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 86.0 % (72.1-94.7) felt improvement. No significant differences were found between groups. Organ damage was found in 16 (0.4 %) patients in the native-tissue repair group compared with one (1.3 %) patient in the mesh group [odds ratio (OR) 3.08; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07-20.30]. The rate of de novo dyspareunia after native-tissue repair was 33.1 % (30.4-35.8), comparable with that after mesh repair. The reoperation rate was 1.1 % (0.8-1.5) in both groups. Most patients were cured and satisfied after native-tissue repair of the posterior vaginal wall, and the patient-reported outcomes were comparable with results after mesh repair. The risk of serious complications and reoperation were comparable between groups. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 35% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 12% |
| Psychology | 2 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#888
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,612
of 370,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#11
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 370,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.