Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2015
Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study.
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 18 papers, 4 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of different surgical techniques on postoperative wound infection in patients with uterine prolapse: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2017Pooled it
- Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Trial
- Single-port laparoscopic lateral suspension with total versus subtotal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective comparative study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence on Clinical Outcomes and Safety.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Surgical retreatment after native-tissue apical prolapse surgery with hysterectomy vs hysteropexy.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy for the Management of Uterovaginal Prolapse: a Pilot, Single-Center Experience from Saudi Arabia.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Role of Hysteropexy in the Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Current urology reports · 2022Review
- Female pelvic floor dysfunction questionnaires: the modern Tower of Babel?International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- The accuracy of comparing laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
- Hysteropexy: an Option for the Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Current urology reports · 2018Review
- Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse using validated questionnaires: 2-year prospective study.International urogynecology journal · 2018Observational
- Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years' experience.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion.International urogynecology journal · 2016Review
- Vaginal-assisted Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Vaginal Hysterectomy with Vaginal Vault Suspension for Advanced Uterine Prolapse: 12-month Preliminary Results of a Randomized Controlled Study.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
- Outcomes of laparoscopic hysteropexy and supracervical hysterectomy plus cervicopexy: A retrospective study.Tzu chi medical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe have previously reported on laparoscopic hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. We now report a pilot randomized study comparing laparoscopic hysteropexy (LH) with vaginal hysterectomy (VH) for the surgical management of uterine prolapse.
methodsWomen with symptomatic uterine prolapse requiring surgery for uterine prolapse were recruited. The data were analyzed for those who had completed a 1-year follow-up. As this is a pilot randomized study, no power calculation was available. The main primary outcome measure was repeat apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included operation data, complications, recovery time, functional and QoL outcomes, and anatomical outcomes. Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney tests compared pre-operative with post-operative data and the difference between the two groups respectively.
resultsOne hundred and thirty-two women were recruited. Of these, 101 were randomized. Eighty percent of the 31 women who dropped out preferred LH. One-year follow-up data were analyzed for 37 women in the LH and 35 women in the VH group. Time before return to normal activity was significantly shorter, estimated blood loss was significantly less, pain score 24 h post-operatively was significantly lower, and hospital stay was significantly shorter in the hysteropexy group compared with the vaginal hysterectomy group. Operation time was significantly longer in the hysteropexy group. Both procedures showed significant improvement in prolapse symptoms. Hysteropexy was associated with better apical support; point C and total vaginal length were significantly improved. More vaginal repairs were subsequently required post-hysteropexy.
conclusionsLaparoscopic hysteropexy is a safe surgical alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with a similar risk of repeat apical surgery at 1 year. Longer follow-up data from larger studies are required.
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.