ArticleCurrent urology reports2012
Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a historical perspective.
Article in Current urology reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Pull-Out Strength of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in a Cadaver Model.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Does Colpocleisis Still Hold Value? The Evolution of Apical Prolapse Surgery: A Comparative National Database Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Robotic sacrocolpopexy: a game worth playing? A critical literature analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Comparison of treatment outcomes for native tissue repair and sacrocolpopexy as apical suspension procedures at the time of hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Observational
- Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2014Article
- Perioperative complications and short-term outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, and laparoscopic pectopexy for apical prolapse.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse has evolved from the use of pomegranates as pessary devices to contemporary robot-assisted laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse requires correction of all the defects to achieve optimal outcomes. Factors to consider in selecting the appropriate repair include patient's age; stage of prolapse; vaginal length; hormonal status; desire for uterine preservation and coitus; symptoms of sexual, urinary, or bowel dysfunction; and any comorbidities that influence her eligibility for anesthesia or chronically increase intra-abdominal pressure. There is currently no consensus as to the best surgical approach for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse is currently performed by vaginal or abdominal (open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches) approaches or a combination. It is important to maintain skills in proven procedures such as abdominal sacrocolpopexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension. This paper discusses the historical evolution of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse from antiquity to date.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22528116What 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.