Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24819328›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014

Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and sacral colpopexy: results and complications.

Gilad A Filmar, Hilaire W Fisher, Enrique Aranda, Peter M Lotze

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gilad A FilmarWomen's Pelvic Health and Continence Center, Houston, TX, USA, GFilmar@gmail.com.
Hilaire W Fisher
Enrique Aranda
Peter M Lotze

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisWe describe our techniques, outcomes, and complications with laparoscopic procedures for correcting pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We hypothesized that laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) gives better anatomic results than laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS), without increased complications.

methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 290 patients who underwent laparoscopic suspensions in a 2-year period. Anatomic measurements using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system were collected. Subjective data were obtained from the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short-Form 20 (PFDI) questionnaire. The anatomic improvement for each stage and complication rates were analyzed. The difference in the risk of mesh erosion between patients undergoing concomitant total hysterectomy and those who had a prior hysterectomy was determined. In 102 patients with stage 2 prolapse, a comparison between ASC and USLS in anatomic and subjective results and complication rates was performed.

resultsAnatomic success rates ranged between 86 % and 95 %. Overall mesh erosion rate was 1.2 %, showing no difference between concomitant total laparoscopic hysterectomy (0 %) and prior hysterectomy (2.1 %, p = 0.155). ASC resulted in statistically significantly better anterior-compartment support than USLS (p = 0.043). There was no difference in apex or posterior compartment position or in PFDI scores.

conclusionLaparoscopic ASC may be better than USLS for correcting anterior-compartment prolapse, with only a minor risk of mesh erosion.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCohort StudiesColposcopyFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansHysterectomyLaparoscopyLigamentsMiddle AgedPelvic Organ ProlapseRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSacrococcygeal RegionSurgical Mesh

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.