Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27250829›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2016

Laparoscopic wrap round mesh sacrohysteropexy for the management of apical prolapse.

Anthony Sarkis Kupelian, Arvind Vashisht, Nikola Sambandan, Alfred Cutner

Abstract read
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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years' experience.International urogynecology journal · 2017
    Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony Sarkis KupelianUrogynaecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, University College London Hospital, Clinic 2, Lower Ground, EGA Wing, 25 Grafton Way, London, WC1E 6DB, UK. anthonyskupelian@hotmail.com.
Arvind VashishtUrogynaecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, University College London Hospital, Clinic 2, Lower Ground, EGA Wing, 25 Grafton Way, London, WC1E 6DB, UK.
Nikola SambandanUrogynaecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, University College London Hospital, Clinic 2, Lower Ground, EGA Wing, 25 Grafton Way, London, WC1E 6DB, UK.
Alfred CutnerUrogynaecology and Pelvic Floor Unit, University College London Hospital, Clinic 2, Lower Ground, EGA Wing, 25 Grafton Way, London, WC1E 6DB, UK.
University College Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisInterest in uterine-conserving surgery for apical prolapse is growing. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is one of the conservative surgical options, although different surgical approaches have been described. We report medium-term outcome data using a bifurcated mesh implant, employing 'wrap round' uterine attachment.

methodsAll procedures undertaken at our unit were reviewed. Study inclusion was contingent on the collection of baseline and 3-month anatomical and symptomatic outcome data. Medium-term follow-up data were collected by telephone review. Anatomical outcome was reported using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification scale. Symptom prevalence and treatment response were assessed using validated instruments including the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I), and the International Consultation on Incontinence Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI) and Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS) questionnaires. Patient satisfaction was reported using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

resultsData were available for 110 patients. Of 80 patients providing PGI-I data at 3 months, 75 (94 %) described their prolapse symptoms as 'much better' or 'very much better'. Anatomical success in the apical compartment was 98 %. ICIQ-UI and ICIQ-VS responses demonstrated significant improvement. Despite a concurrent vaginal repair in only 11 % of patients, satisfaction at a mean follow-up of 2.6 years was 96 %. Repeat surgery for vaginal wall prolapse was required in only 5 % of patients. No safety concerns or graft complications were recorded.

conclusionsThis surgical variant of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is safe and highly effective. These data also cast doubt on the need for correction of modest vaginal wall prolapse at the time of surgery, and imply that apical prolapse may play a dominant role in the generation of symptoms.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansLaparoscopyLondonMiddle AgedPelvic Organ ProlapsePostoperative ComplicationsSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopic surgeryPelvic organ prolapseSacrohysteropexyUterus preservation

Identifiers

PMID27250829
OpenAlexW2474854437

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.