ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2015
Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hysterectomy with Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy Versus Native Tissue Repair for Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- The Problem of Recurrent Anterior Wall Prolapse after Supracervical Hysterectomy with Sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Composite Failure Associated With Sacrohysteropexy and Sacrocolpopexy With Supracervical Hysterectomy for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025Article
- Sacrocolpopexy: The Way I Do It.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
- Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023Article
- Medium term anatomical and functional outcomes following modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review.International urogynecology journal · 2022Review
- Neglected pelvic viscera prolapse complicated by irreducible cystocele containing a large vesicle calculus.BMJ case reports · 2022Article
- Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy: not only for vaginal vault suspension? An observational cohort study.International urogynecology journal · 2022Observational
- Laparoscopic management of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after open sacrocervicopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal robotic reconstructive pelvic floor surgery: a prospective study and overview of the literature.International urogynecology journal · 2020Review
- Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Current surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: Strategies for the improvement of surgical outcomes.Investigative and clinical urology · 2019Review
- Route of hysterectomy during minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy does not affect postoperative outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: How to Avoid Short- and Long-Term Complications.Current urology reports · 2016Review
- Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with transcervical morcellation and sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of uterine prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2016Article
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 hypothesisOptimal management of the cervix at the time of hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy for primary uterovaginal prolapse is unknown. Our hypothesis was that recurrent prolapse at 1 year would be more likely after a supracervical robotic hysterectomy (SRH) compared with a total robotic hysterectomy (TRH) at the time of robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) for uterovaginal prolapse.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort analysis of 83 women who underwent hysterectomy with RSCP over a 24-month period (40 with TRH and 43 with SRH). At 1 year post-procedure, subjects completed validated questionnaires regarding pelvic floor symptoms, sexual function, and global satisfaction, and underwent a pelvic examination to identify mesh exposure and evaluate pelvic floor support.
resultsDemographics of the two groups were similar, except for a higher mean body mass index in the TRH group (31.9 TRH vs 25.8 SRH kg/m(2), p < 0.001). The rate of recurrent prolapse ≥ stage II was higher for women who underwent SRH compared with TRH (41.9 % vs 20.0 %, p = 0.03; OR 2.8, 95 % CI, 1.07-7.7). However, when this was analyzed as recurrence ≥ hymen, there was no difference between groups (12.5 % TRH vs 18.6 % SRH, p = 0.45). Likewise, there was no difference between groups when a composite measure of success was used (30 out of 40 [75 %] TRH vs 29 out of 43 [67.4 %] SRH, p = 0.45).
conclusionsWomen who underwent an SRH were 2.8 times more likely to have a recurrent prolapse, ≥ stage II, at 1 year, compared with those who underwent a TRH, but when composite assessment scores were used there was no difference between the groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25366305What 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.