Cited by 5Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchSexual function and dysfunction studies

The impact of pelvic organ prolapse and/or continence surgery on pelvic floor muscle function in women: A systematic review

Open access
Mastwyk, Sally, McClelland, Jodie, Rosamilia, Anna, Frawley, Helena·2019·Neurourology and Urodynamics

Abstract

Aims: To systematically review the evidence for the effect of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and/or continence surgery on pelvic floor muscle (PFM) morphometry and function in women, and to investigate whether a relationship exists between PFM measures and clinician‐reported objective pelvic floor outcomes postoperatively. Methods: Six electronic databases were searched until March 2018. Studies were included if they examined the effect of POP and/or continence surgery on the PFM in women, and reported pre‐ and postoperative data. Methodological quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Three meta‐analyses were planned based on postoperative follow‐up time. Results: Twenty‐one studies met the inclusion criteria. Varied surgical interventions and 33 different PFM measures were represented. The methodological quality of included studies varied considerably. The 0 to 6 weeks postoperative meta‐analysis showed no statistically significant change in PFM function (SMD = 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.26 to 0.33). This was consistent at 3 and 6 or more months (SMD = 1.13; 0.35 95% CI = −0.34 to 2.60, − 0.42 to 1.12 respectively). None of the included studies investigated the relationship between PFM measures and clinician‐reported objective outcomes postoperatively. Conclusions: This review did not show a clear effect of POP and/or continence surgery on PFM morphometry or function in women and was unable to show a relationship with outcomes such as objective prolapse score and urodynamic findings. This could be because surgery does not measurably impact on the PFM or due to the poor quality and heterogeneity of studies. Future well‐designed research is needed to specifically investigate change in the PFM following surgery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/nau.24025

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Rovner E, Athanasiou S, Choo MS, et al. Surgery for unrinary incontinence in women. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wein A, Wagg A, eds. Incontinence. 6th ed. Tokyo: International Continence Society; 2017:1741-1854.
  2. Maher C, Baessler K, Barber M, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wein A, Wagg A, eds. Incontinence. 6th ed. Tokyo: International Continence Society; 2017:1855-1991.
  3. O'Connell PR, Knowles CH, Maeda Y, et al. Surgery for faecal incontinence. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A, eds. Incontinence. 6th ed. Tokyo: International Continence Society; 2017:2087-2142.
  4. Dumoulin C, Adewuyi T, Booth J, et al. Adult Conservative Management. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, eds. Incontinence. 6th ed. Tokyo: International Continence Society; 2017:1443-1628.
  5. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review Interventions The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011: http://handbook.cochrane.org.
  6. Author/s: Mastwyk, S;McClelland, J;Rosamilia, A;Frawley, H Title: The impact of pelvic organ prolapse and/or continence surgery on pelvic floor muscle function in women: A systematic review Date: 2019-08 Citation:
  7. Mastwyk, S., McClelland, J., Rosamilia, A. & Frawley, H. (2019). The impact of pelvic organ prolapse and/or continence surgery on pelvic floor muscle function in women: A systematic review. NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 38 (6), pp.1467-1481. https:// doi.org/10.1002/nau.24025. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/285889

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mastwyk, S., McClelland, J., Rosamilia, A., & Frawley, H.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Monash Health (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Mastwyk, Sally
Venue
Neurourology and Urodynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05-25
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
1467-1481
ISSN
  • 0733-2467 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6777
OpenAlex
W2946715424
Cited by
5
References
59
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurourology and Urodynamics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, continence surgery, pelvic floor muscle function, postoperative outcomes, women, urodynamic findings
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Postoperative Period, Pelvic Floor, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review