Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25874589›Full record

SynthesisCurrent urology reports2015

Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse.

Alexandriah N Alas, Jennifer T Anger

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current urology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Delayed transrectal mesh erosion after sacrocolpopexy.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexandriah N AlasDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA.
Jennifer T Anger
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · USCleveland Clinic Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledPelvic organ prolapse is a prevalent condition, with up to 12 % of women requiring surgery in their lifetime. This manuscript reviews the treatment options for apical prolapse, specifically. Both conservative and surgical management options are acceptable and should be based on patient preferences. Pessaries are the most commonly used conservative management options. Guided pelvic floor muscle training is more beneficial than self-taught Kegel exercises, though may not be effective for high stage or apical prolapse. Surgical treatment options include abdominal and vaginal approaches, the latter of which can be performed open, laparoscopically, and robotically. A systematic review has demonstrated that sacrocolpopexy has better long-term success for treatment of apical prolapse than vaginal techniques, but vaginal surgery can be considered an acceptable alternative. Recent data has demonstrated equal efficacy between uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension at 1 year. To date, two randomized controlled trials have demonstrated equal efficacy between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Though abdominal approaches may have increased long-term durability, when counseling their patients, surgeons should consider longer operating times and increased pain and cost with these procedures compared to vaginal surgery. KEY POINTS: • Pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with a physical therapist is the best approach to conservative management of apical prolapse [10]. • Pessaries should be managed with regular follow-up care to minimize complications [14•]. • Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy appears as effective as the gold standard abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) [42•]. • Robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and laparoscopic assisted sacrocolpopexy (LASC) are equally effective and should be utilized by pelvic floor surgeons based on their skill level and expertise in laparoscopy [44, 45•]. • Uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and sacrospinous ligament suspension (SSLS) are considered equally effective procedures and can be combined with a vaginal hysterectomy. • Obliterative procedures are effective but are considered definitive surgery [24••]. • The use of transvaginal mesh has been shown in some studies to be superior to native tissue repairs with regard to anatomic outcomes, but complication rates are higher. Transvaginal mesh should be reserved for surgeons with adequate training so that complications are minimized.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansPelvic Organ ProlapseSurgery, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID25874589
OpenAlexW2034982784

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.