Cited by 12Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studies

The impact of diabetes mellitus on pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after robotic sacrocolpopexy

Eckhardt, Sarah, Laus, Katharina, DeAndrade, Samantha, Lee, Janet, Nguyen, John·2023·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Data examining the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on prolapse recurrence after sacrocolpopexy (SCP) is limited. The primary objective of this study was to determine if DM affects prolapse recurrence after robotic SCP. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent robotic SCP between 2012 and 2019 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. The cohort was divided into women with and without DM at the time of SCP. The primary outcome was composite failure. Secondary outcomes included recurrent compartment-specific prolapse, reoperation rates, and surgical complications. Results Of 547 patients included, 100 had DM. Women with DM were older, had higher BMI, higher parity, and were more likely to be nonwhite. Women with DM had more advanced prolapse at baseline but were not more likely to undergo concomitant procedures at the time of SCP. Over a median follow-up of 2.1 years (IQR 1.3, 3.4), women with DM had significantly increased risk of anterior vaginal prolapse (AVP) recurrence (13% vs 3%, p<0.01), but not composite failure (21% vs 14%, p=0.14). On multivariate regression, women with DM were almost 4 times as likely to experience AVP recurrence over time (AVP hazard ratio (HR) 3.93, 95% CI 1.29-12.03, p=0.02). Conclusion In our cohort, DM was a risk factor for AVP recurrence but not composite failure after robotic SCP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-023-05455-y

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Eckhardt, S., Laus, K., DeAndrade, S., Lee, J., & Nguyen, J.
Affiliations
Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
Eckhardt, Sarah
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2023-02-13
Volume
34
Issue
8
Pages
1859-1866
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W4320489737
Cited by
12
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, pelvic organ prolapse, sacrocolpopexy, robotic surgery, prolapse recurrence, cystocele, composite failure, risk factors, reoperation, surgical complications
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Recurrence, Retrospective Studies, Robotics, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Robotic Surgical Procedures

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