Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2015
A multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate mesh-augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse.
Trial report 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, 3 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy and hysteropreservation for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled 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
- Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2017Pooled it
- Hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension or Uphold™ hysteropexy in women with apical prolapse: a parallel cohort study.International urogynecology journal · 2020Trial
- Trial
- The Design of a Randomized Trial of Vaginal Surgery for Uterovaginal Prolapse: Vaginal Hysterectomy With Native Tissue Vault Suspension Versus Mesh Hysteropexy Suspension (The Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial).Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgeryTrial
- Anatomical and Mechanical Safety of the Tissue Anchoring System (TAS®) for Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Anterior approach sacrospinous hysteropexy: native tissue compared with mesh-augmented repair for primary uterovaginal prolapse management.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- The resurrection of sacrospinous fixation: unilateral apical sling hysteropexy.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Comparison of UpholdScientific reports · 2018Article
- The hybrid technique of pelvic organ prolapse treatment: apical sling and subfascial colporrhaphy.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Antimicrobial and anti-biofilm properties of polypropylene meshes coated with metal-containing DLC thin films.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2017Article
- Surgical Updates in the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2017Review
- Failure of Expectations in Vaginal Surgery: Lack of Appropriate Consent, Goals and Expectations of Surgery.Current urology reports · 2016Review
- Utero-vaginal suspension using bilateral vaginal anterior sacrospinous fixation with mesh: intermediate results of a cohort study.International urogynecology journal · 2015Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisHysterectomy is often part of pelvic organ prolapse repair. However, this may offer no benefit when compared to uterine preservation. We aimed to prospectively evaluate a minimally invasive bilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy using polypropylene mesh. We hypothesized that anatomic success and patient satisfaction can be achieved with this technique.
methodsWomen with uterovaginal prolapse desiring surgery who had completed childbearing were enrolled. Preoperative assessment included standardized prolapse examination and validated symptom and pain scale questionnaires. Women with prior pelvic organ prolapse repair or any contraindication to uterine preservation were excluded. Data including demographic, operative and postoperative information was collected on patients for 1 year following surgery. Continuous variables are summarized as means (standard deviation) and categorical variables are summarized as frequencies and percentages. A mixed-effects model was used to evaluate the changes in questionnaire scores and outcomes at 6 months and 12 months after surgery with random effects accounting for the center effect with adjustment for age.
resultsThe study group comprised 99 women from three female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (urogynecology) centers. The average age of the participants was 67.0 years (11.32 years), BMI 26.04 kg/m(2) (3.56 kg/m(2)), and the majority were multiparous (98.9%) and menopausal (90.9%). Overall success at 12 months, as measured by composite outcome was 97.7% (with the Ba point as the anatomic landmark) and 96.6% (with the C point as the anatomic landmark). The overall exposure rate was 6.52% and reoperation rate was 7.53%. All subjective questionnaire scores and anatomic outcomes had improved at 12 months.
conclusionsSacrospinous hysteropexy using a minimally invasive polypropylene mesh kit is an effective and safe technique for addressing uterovaginal prolapse as an alternative to hysterectomy at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery.
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.