ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multimodal concept for vaginal cuff closure by modification of the Bakay technique in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized clinical study.BMC women's health · 2022Trial
- Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Trial
- Associations Between Vaginal Angle and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Exploration of a Possible New Screening Tool.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Utility of Shear Wave Elastography Combined with Transperineal Pelvic Floor Ultrasound in Evaluating Pelvic Floor Function After Hysterectomy.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Article
- Regional Performance of Apical Support Procedures at Time of Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: What Is the Role of Surgeon Training?Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2021Article
- Addressing apical support during hysterectomy for prolapse: a NSQIP review.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Motion of the vaginal apex during strain and defecation.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Observational
- Prophylactic McCall Culdoplasty by a Vaginal Approach during Mini-Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.BioMed research international · 2019Article
- Utilization of apical vaginal support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy performed for benign conditions: a national estimate.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2017Article
- Concomitant apical suspensory procedures in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse in the United States in 2011.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
- Rates of colpopexy and colporrhaphy at the time of hysterectomy for prolapse.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2016Article
- Apical Vaginal Support: The Often Forgotten Piece of the Puzzle.Missouri medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim was to determine factors associated with performing concurrent apical support procedures in hysterectomies carried out for uterovaginal prolapse.
methodsHysterectomies performed for uterovaginal prolapse from 2000 to 2010 were identified by ICD-9 codes. Uterovaginal prolapse was a proxy for apical descent. Primary outcome was the rate of concurrent apical procedures. Secondary outcomes included concurrent surgeries, complications, and surgeon training. Chi-squared tests compared categorical variables. Logistic regression determined factors associated with concurrent apical support.
resultsA total of 2,465 hysterectomies were performed for uterovaginal prolapse. In only 1,358 cases (55.1%) were concurrent apical support procedures carried out. Cases without apical procedures were more likely to undergo cystocele repair (23.8% vs 9.4%, p < 0.001), but less likely to have rectocele (3.4% vs 12.2%, p < 0.001) or combined cystocele/rectocele repair (16.4% vs 25.6%, p < 0.001). Of those without apical procedures, 95.7% were performed by generalists. Urogynecologists and minimally invasive gynecologists were more likely to perform apical procedures (97.1% and 88.8% vs 23.6%, p < 0.001). Older patients (>75 years) were more likely to undergo apical procedures (OR 5.096, 95% CI 3.127-8.304). Surgeons practicing for 10-14 years and >20 years were less likely to perform apical procedures than those practicing <5 years (p < 0.001 vs. p = 0.01).
conclusionsAt a tertiary hospital, a significant proportion of hysterectomies are carried out for uterovaginal prolapse without concurrent apical support procedures, with the majority performed by generalists. Urogynecologists and minimally invasive gynecologists are more likely to perform an apical suspension at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse than generalists. This supports the need for continued education about apical support to appropriately manage uterovaginal prolapse.
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.