Cited by 35Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsHernia repair and management

Levator hiatal area as a risk factor for cystocele recurrence after surgery: a prospective study

Open access
Vergeldt, TFM, Notten, KJB, Weemhoff, M, van Kuijk, SMJ, Mulder, FEM, Beets‐Tan, RG, Vliegen, RFA, Gondrie, ETCM +3 more·2015·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether increased levator hiatal area, measured preoperatively, was independently associated with anatom‐ical cystocele recurrence 12 months after anterior colporrhaphy. Design: Multicentre prospective cohort study. Setting: Nine teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Population: Women planned for conventional anterior colporrhaphy without mesh. Methods: Women underwent physical examination, translabial three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to surgery. At 12 months after surgery the physical examination was repeated. Main outcome measures: Women with and without anatomical cystocele recurrence were compared to assess the association with levator hiatal area on 3D ultrasound, levator hiatal area on MRI, and potential confounding factors. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was created to quantify the discriminative ability of using levator hiatal area to predict anatomical cystocele recurrence. Results: Of 139 included women, 76 (54.7%) had anatomical cystocele recurrence. Preoperative stage 3 or 4 and increased levator hiatal area during Valsalva on ultrasound were significantly associated with cystocele recurrence, with odds ratios of 3.47 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI 1.66–7.28) and 1.06 (95% CI 1.01–1.11) respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.60 (95% CI 0.51–0.70) for levator hiatal area during Valsalva on ultrasound, and 0.65 (95% CI 0.55–0.71) for preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP–Q) stage. Conclusions: Increased levator hiatal area during Valsalva on ultrasound prior to surgery and preoperative stage 3 or 4 are independent risk factors for anatomical cystocele recurrence after anterior colporrhaphy; however, increased levator hiatal area as the sole factor for predicting anatomical cystocele recurrence after surgery shows poor test characteristics.

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 · 10.1111/1471-0528.13340

Cites

38 of 38 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

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?

  • For prolapse recurrence, parity per 1 was not statistically significant (n=2, pooled OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.76-1.2).

    “For prolapse recurrence, parity per 1 was not statistically significant (n¼2, pooled OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76e1.2).”

    From Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Interpretation section says parity was not significantly associated with prolapse recurrence in this prospective study. It does not report a two-study pooled estimate or the claimed OR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.76–1.2), so those figures are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For pelvic organ prolapse recurrence, BMI was not statistically significant as a continuous variable (n=3, pooled OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.03).

    “nor as a continuous variable (n¼3, pooled OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93e1.03).”

    From Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Interpretation section states that BMI was not significantly associated with prolapse recurrence in this study, supporting the direction of the claim. But this was a single prospective study of cystocele recurrence after surgery; it does not report an analysis of three studies or the pooled OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.93–1.03). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For pelvic organ prolapse recurrence, age per 1 year was not statistically significant (n=3, pooled OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.99-1.03).

    “For POP recurrence, age per 1 year was not statistically significant (n¼3, pooled OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99e1.03).”

    From Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Interpretation section reports that age was not significantly associated with POP recurrence in this prospective study. It does not report a three-study pooled estimate or the stated OR of 1.01 (95% CI 0.99–1.03), so those quantitative details are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vergeldt, T., Notten, K., Weemhoff, M., van Kuijk, S., Mulder, F., Beets‐Tan, R., Vliegen, R., Gondrie, E., Bergmans, M., Roovers, J., & Kluivers, K.
Affiliations
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen the Netherlands
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology Maastricht University Medical Centre Maastricht the Netherlands
  • Atrium Medisch Centrum Parkstad (NL)
  • Epidemiology Maastricht University Medical Centre Maastricht the Netherlands
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam the Netherlands
  • Radiology Maastricht University Medical Centre Maastricht the Netherlands
  • Radiology Atrium Medical Centre Parkstad Heerlen the Netherlands
  • Zuyderland Medisch Centrum (NL)
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology Laurentius Medical Centre Roermond the Netherlands
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03-11
Volume
122
Issue
8
Pages
1130-1137
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2085798240
Cited by
35
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ZonMw (171001012)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
Keywords
cystocele recurrence, anterior colporrhaphy, pelvic organ prolapse, risk factors, Valsalva maneuver, 3D ultrasound, pelvic floor muscles, POP-Q stage, postoperative recurrence prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Prospective Studies, Recurrence, Risk Factors, Ultrasonography, Valsalva Maneuver, Case-Control Studies, Pelvic Floor, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Cystocele

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