ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2012
Magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal versus vaginal prolapse surgery with mesh.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mid- to Long-Term Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results of Two Prolapse Surgeries for Apical Defect: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2021Trial
- Anatomical and functional changes to the pelvic floor after robotic versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a randomised study.International urogynecology journal · 2016Trial
- Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging before and 6 months after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2014Trial
- [Application of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Middle Compartment Defect].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Review
- Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging following native tissue vaginal reconstructive surgery; a prospective study.International urogynecology journal · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe compared two surgical approaches in patients with symptomatic prolapse of the vaginal apex with normal controls by analyzing pelvic landmark relationships measured using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before and after surgery.
methodsIn this prospective multicenter pilot study involving 16 participants, nulliparous controls (n = 6) were compared with ten parous (3.0 ± 1.0) women with uterine apical prolapse equal to or greater than stage 2. Group A (n = 5) underwent abdominal sacral colpopexy with monofilament polypropylene mesh and group B (n = 5) with vaginal mesh kit repair (Total ProLift). Subtotal hysterectomy was performed in all group A and no group B women. All patients underwent preoperative and 3-month postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and dynamic MRI. Comparison of MRI pelvic angles and distances was performed and analyzed by Mann-Whitney rank sum test and chi-square test.
resultsVaginal apical support is similar at 3 months for abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASCP) and ProLift by POP-Q examination and MRI analysis. In both treatment groups, the postoperative POP-Q point C and MRI parameters were similar to nulliparous controls at 3 months.
conclusionsAnatomic outcomes for ASCP compared with ProLift were similar at 3 months in terms of vaginal apical support by POP-Q and MRI analysis. Continued comparative analysis of postoperative support with objective imaging seems warranted.
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.