ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014
Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Manchester procedure: A systematic review of recurrence, perioperative measures, and financial cost, and a scoping review of sexual dysfunction, gynecologic cancer, and obstetric outcomes.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh.International urogynecology journal · 2019Trial
- Ten Years of Laparoscopic Pectopexy: A Case Series Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Impact of levator ani muscle avulsions on Manchester procedure outcomes: A 5-year follow-up study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after hysterectomy; a 10-year national follow-up study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Body mass index influences the risk of reoperation after first-time surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. A Danish cohort study, 2010-2016.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Traditional McCall culdoplasty compared to a modified McCall technique with double ligament suspension: anatomical and clinical outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2018Observational
- Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse: a Danish cohort study with 15-20 years' follow-up.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
- The Manchester repair: an instructional video.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Pelvic organ prolapse: A primer for urologists.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2017Review
- The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review.International urogynecology journal · 2017Review
- Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion.International urogynecology journal · 2016Review
- Heterogeneity in post-intervention prolapse and urinary outcome reporting: a one-year review of the International Urogynecology Journal.International urogynecology journal · 2015Review
- To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery.International journal of women's health · 2015Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThere are large variations in reported frequency of recurrence and subsequent treatment after pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. We hypothesized that native tissue repair entails high subjective satisfaction and good objective results, with low POP reoperation rates and few complications.
methodsThe 1-year results of 699 women having had native tissue repair for POP at our urogynecological unit from 2002 to 2005 were evaluated using an internal quality control database. A short-form physician check list for patient subjective and objective outcomes has been routinely used for 1-year controls since 2002, and results are registered longitudinally in the database. Patients' medical records up to 2012 were reviewed for information on recurrent POP symptoms. A telephone interview was performed to assess POP recurrences potentially treated elsewhere. The cumulative incidence for reoperation was calculated comparing partial with complete (surgical treatment of all three compartments) native tissue repairs.
resultsSubjective satisfaction was stated by 94 % of patients at the 1-year control, and 84 % had stage 0-I in any compartment using the POP Quantification (POP-Q) system. The 5-year reoperation rate was significantly lower in the complete vs. the partial (2.6 % vs. 8.9 %) repair group. Cumulative incidence of reoperation showed a slight but constant increase over the years.
conclusionsPOP surgery using native tissue repair entails low reoperation rates with excellent subjective and objective results and should be the first choice in treating primary POP, providing use of adequate surgical technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23832266What 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.