Cited by 9Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsHernia repair and managementUterine Myomas and Treatments

Pelvic floor muscle weakness: a risk factor for anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence

Schachar, Jeffrey S., Devakumar, Hemikaa, Martin, Laura, Farag, Sara, Hurtado, Eric A., Davila, G. Willy·2018·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Native tissue vaginal repairs are associated with relatively high levels of recurrence. Systematic reviews have noted that preoperative pelvic floor muscle strength was associated with increased risk of recurrence in the short term.Methods This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent a primary reconstructive surgery for anterior compartment vaginal prolapse between 2001 and 2015. Patients were divided into "absent," "weak" and "good" preoperative PFM strength (aPFM, wPFM and gPFM, respectively) based on a modified Oxford scale. Failure rates were determined by a composite of subjective and objective anatomic outcomes. Subjects who underwent re-operations or procedures for recurrent prolapse of the anterior compartment were considered failures. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results Two hundred ninety-nine patients were included. The aPFM (n = 36), wPFM (n = 115) and gPFM (n = 148) groups had similar descriptive statistics, except subjects in the aPFM and wPFM groups were significantly older than the gPFM group (p = 0.008). All groups underwent similar reconstructive surgeries. Average length of follow-up of 143.9 weeks (41 to 717 weeks) was similar among the three groups (p = 0.472). For the primary outcome of composite failure, aPFM had significantly more anterior vaginal wall recurrences than both the wPFM and gPFM groups, 13.89% vs. 3.48% and 4.05%, respectively (p = 0.033).Conclusions Patients with preoperative absent pelvic floor muscle strength (nonfunctioning PFM) had a significantly higher anterior vaginal wall recurrence rate than those with weak or good pelvic floor muscle strength.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-018-3626-2

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schachar, J. S., Devakumar, H., Martin, L., Farag, S., Hurtado, E. A., & Davila, G. W.
Affiliations
Cleveland Clinic Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Schachar, Jeffrey S.
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2018-03-19
Volume
29
Issue
11
Pages
1661-1667
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W2792839991
Cited by
9
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
International Urogynecological Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
pelvic floor muscle weakness, cystocele, prolapse recurrence, Oxford scale, composite failure, pelvic organ prolapse surgery
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Postoperative Period, Recurrence, Reoperation, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Uterine Prolapse, Vagina, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Muscle Weakness, Plastic Surgery Procedures, Muscle Strength, Pelvic Floor Disorders

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