Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2015
High uterosacral vault suspension vs Sacrocolpopexy for treating apical defects: a randomized controlled trial with twelve months follow-up.
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 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative study of absorbable suture and permanent suture in sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.International urogynecology journal · 2023Pooled it
- Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- RCT of vaginal extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension (VEULS) with anterior mesh versus sacrocolpopexy: 4-year outcome.International urogynecology journal · 2018Trial
- Surgical Strategies for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Hysterectomy with Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy Versus Native Tissue Repair for Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Observation of medium-term outcomes of transvaginal extraperitoneal high uterosacral ligament suspension with anterior mesh without hysterectomy for advanced multi-compartmental prolapse.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Observational
- Sacrospinous fixation versus uterosacral ligament suspension in managing apical prolapse.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Quality of Life Assessment After Pelvic Prolapse Surgery With and Without Mesh: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: could we simplify the technique?Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Article
- Sacrocolpopexy: The Way I Do It.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
- Recurrent surgery in uterine prolapse: A nationwide register study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- Pelvic Pain and Apical Prolapse Surgery: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2020Article
- Female pelvic floor dysfunction questionnaires: the modern Tower of Babel?International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Long-term outcomes and predictors of failure after surgery for stage IV apical pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
- Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2018Article
- Symptom Relief and Retreatment After Vaginal, Open, or Robotic Surgery for Apical Vaginal Prolapse.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe high uterosacral vault suspension (HUVS) is a vaginal approach for treating apical prolapse that provides shorter operative and recovery times and is associated with lower morbidity rates. Success rates reported for this technique are comparable with the abdominal sacrocolpopexy (SCP); however, to date, there are no prospective randomized studies comparing HUVS to SCP. The aim of the study was to compare the anatomical objective cure rates for the apical compartment in patients undergoing either HUVS or SCP at 12 months' follow-up.
methodsWe performed a single-center parallel randomized controlled trial in patients with severe apical defect defined as Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) point C ≥ stage 3. Based on the center's previous experience, a sample size of 124 patients was required to show a 20% cure rate difference between both techniques with 80% power and using a two-tailed 5% level of significance. One hundred and ten patients were available for analysis; 54 were allocated to abdominal SCP and 56 to HUVS. The primary outcome was to evaluate surgical objective success defined as POP-Q point C stage<2. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), the Perceived Quality of Life Scale (P-QOL), and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12) questionnaires were used for subjective assessment.
resultsThe objective success rate for apical suspension at 12 months' follow-up was 100% for abdominal SCP and 82.5% for HUVS (log-rank p 0.033). Both techniques showed a significant improvement with regards to prolapse symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and sexual function. The significant improvement in postoperative questionnaires was comparable between both surgeries at 12 months' follow-up.
conclusionsAbdominal SCP has statistically significant better anatomical results when compared with HUVS for correcting apical defects at 12 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25910610What 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.