ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2011
The comparison of the anatomical and symptomatic outcomes of sacrocolpopexy and posterior intravaginal slingoplasty.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bilateral sacrospinous fixation without hysterectomy: 18-month follow-up.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2015Article
- Management of pelvic organ prolapse.Korean journal of urology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to compare abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASCP) with posterior intravaginal slingoplasty (PIVS) in terms of lower urinary tract symptoms and anatomical restoration.
methodsNinety-two patients underwent PIVS and 98 patients underwent ASCP.
resultsRegarding ASCP, the blood loss, operation time, and hospitalization length were 537 ml, 94.5 min, and 3.07 days, respectively. Eight (8) patients required blood transfusion; urinary retention was diagnosed in four cases, surgical side infection was seen in three cases; constipation was a problem in nine cases; retroperitoneal haematoma was observed in one case; and bladder injury happened in two cases. Regarding PIVS, the blood loss, operation time, and hospitalization length were 275 ml, 53 min, and 2.08 days, respectively. Intramuscular haematoma was diagnosed in one patient, and constipation was a problem in one patient.
conclusionsASCP and PIVS had same efficiency for the treatment of vault prolapse during the study follow-up. Both operations had good anatomical restoration for rectocele and cystocele. Moreover, PIVS also cured enterocele as an additional advantageous over ASCP. Besides, PIVS has significantly improved stress urinary incontinence, nocturia, and pelvic pain in terms of lower urinary tract symptoms compared to ASCP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.