Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26658893›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2016

Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse.

Lindsay C Turner, Erin S Lavelle, Jonathan P Shepherd

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. In-plane and out-of-plane deformations of gilt utero-sacral ligaments.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

3 authors.

Lindsay C TurnerDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, West Penn Hospital, 4800 Friendship Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 1522, USA.
Erin S LavelleDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Jonathan P ShepherdDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. dr.jon.shepherd@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisOur objective was to compare complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic (L-USLS) and vaginal (V-USLS) uterosacral ligament suspensions.

methodsThis is a retrospective study of USLS procedures performed at a large academic center from 2011 to 2014. Patient demographics, surgical data, complications, and prolapse recurrence of L-USLS and V-USLS were compared. Logistic regression identified predictors of operative time, complications, and prolapse recurrence.

resultsThere were 54 L-USLS and 119 V-USLS procedures with median follow-up of 21.5 weeks (IQR 9.3-50.8). Women undergoing L-USLS were less likely to have medical comorbidities and had less severe prolapse, but were more likely to report prior hysterectomy. L-USLS had longer operative times (190.1 ± 46.8 vs 172.7 ± 47.3 min, p = 0.03), but after correcting for concomitant procedures, the operative times of the two approaches were not significantly different (adjusted OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.99-1.00). There was no significant difference in complications between groups (24.1 % vs 21.8 %, p = 0.75). However, there were nonsignificant trends toward more ureteral injuries and suture removals following V-USLS. Postoperative POP-Q points of the groups did not differ, except for total vaginal length (TVL), which was longer after L-USLS (8.3 ± 1.1 cm vs 7.4 ± 1.2 cm, p < 0.001). 19 patients met the composite definition of prolapse recurrence, with no significant difference between groups (16.2 % vs 16 %, p = 0.98). After adjusting for preoperative prolapse stage, route was not a significant predictor of prolapse recurrence (adjusted OR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.12-1.30).

conclusionsL-USLS has comparable clinical outcomes, with similar rates of complications and prolapse recurrence to the traditional vaginal approach.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsLaparoscopyLigamentsMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexSuturesUreterUterine ProlapseMinimally invasive surgeryPerioperative complicationsUterosacral ligament suspensionVaginal prolapse

Identifiers

PMID26658893

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.