ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2012
Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.International urogynecology journal · 2019Pooled it
- Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2017Pooled it
- Where to for pelvic organ prolapse treatment after the FDA pronouncements? A systematic review of the recent literature.International urogynecology journal · 2013Pooled it
- Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Trial
- Uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2026Review
- Role of Hysteropexy in the Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Current urology reports · 2022Review
- How and on whom to perform uterine-preserving surgery for uterine prolapse.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2022Article
- Mechanics of Uterosacral Ligaments: Current Knowledge, Existing Gaps, and Future Directions.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2021Review
- Update in fertility-sparing native-tissue procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy versus hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched cohort study.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Prolapse Repair Using Non-synthetic Material: What is the Current Standard?Current urology reports · 2019Review
- Hysteropexy: an Option for the Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Current urology reports · 2018Review
- Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy: a video tutorial.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy: a retrospective feasibility study.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study is to assess the impact of hysterectomy on durability of uterine prolapse repair by comparing hysterectomy/uterosacral cuff suspension (VH) to a new vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy (USH).
methodsA retrospective chart review of uterine prolapse patients after USH or VH with concomitant procedures as indicated was conducted, analyzing Baden-Walker grading of apex, anterior, and posterior compartments (Kaplan-Meier analysis) Baden et al. (Tex Med 64(5):56-58, 1968).
resultsA total of 200 charts met criteria. USH women weighed less, were younger, and more constipated with larger rectoceles. Levator parameters did not differ Romanzi et al. (Neurourol Urodyn 18(6):603-612, 1999). Baden-Walker data were entered at recurrence or minimum of 6 months (2.4 months-10 years; median, 1.5 years). All-apex durability was 96.4%, with no difference between hysteropexy and cuff suspension (96.0% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.90), cystocele (86.8% vs. 93.8%, p = 0.31), or rectocele (97.8% vs. 100%, p = 0.16) at 2 years.
conclusionIn uterine prolapse patients, technically similar uterosacral hysteropexy durability did not differ from hysterectomy-based cuff suspension nor between cohorts for cystocele or rectocele.
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.