ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2014
Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and sacral colpopexy: results and complications.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of postoperative recovery and complications: laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal sacrospinous ligament suspension.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Cystopexy raises the post-operative complication rate during laparoscopic hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and durability.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs. Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Case-Control Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- The Influence of Vaginal Native Tissues Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery in Patients with Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse on Preexisting Storage Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS).Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Demonstration of a box-stitch technique for laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Native tissue repair for central compartment prolapse: a narrative review.International urogynecology journal · 2017Review
- Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
- Heterogeneity in post-intervention prolapse and urinary outcome reporting: a one-year review of the International Urogynecology Journal.International urogynecology journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
24819328What 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.