ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2017
The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 2017. 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, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Manchester procedure: A systematic review of recurrence, perioperative measures, and financial cost, and a scoping review of sexual dysfunction, gynecologic cancer, and obstetric outcomes.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Treatment outcomes of Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy for mid-compartment prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies.The British journal of surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Feasibility and Safety of Same-Day Discharge After a Manchester Procedure.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Impact of levator ani muscle avulsions on Manchester procedure outcomes: A 5-year follow-up study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- A novel technique for the measurement of cervical length in non-pregnant women.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2024Article
- The Outcomes of the Manchester Procedure Versus Sacrospinous Ligament Hysteropexy for Uterine Prolapse: A Study of the British Society of Urogynaecology Database.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Cervical cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Effects of Full Inhalation of Sevoflurane and Total Intravenous Anesthesia on Hemodynamics, Serum Myocardial Enzymes, and Myocardial Markers in Elderly Patients Undergoing Hysterectomy.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- A 27-year-old patient with congenital bladder exstrophy and recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: a case report.Acta clinica Croatica · 2020Article
- Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
- Revisiting current treatment options for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a contemporary literature review.Research and reports in urology · 2019Review
- The urethral closure mechanism is deteriorated after anterior colporrhaphy.International urogynecology journal · 2018Observational
- The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2018Observational
- Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: an activity-based costing analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
- The Manchester repair: an instructional video.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisUterine prolapse is a common health problem and the number of surgical procedures is increasing. No consensus regarding the surgical strategy for repair of uterine prolapse exists. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) is the preferred surgical procedure worldwide, but uterus-preserving alternatives including the Manchester procedure (MP) are available. The objective was to evaluate if VH and the MP are equally efficient treatments for uterine prolapse with regard to anatomical and symptomatic outcome, quality of life score, functional outcome, re-operation and conservative re-intervention rate, complications and operative outcomes.
methodsWe systematically searched Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrials and Clinical trials register using the MeSh terms "uterine prolapse", "uterus prolapse", "vaginal prolapse" "pelvic organ prolapse", "prolapsed uterus", "Manchester procedure" and "vaginal hysterectomy". No limitations regarding language, study design or methodology were applied. In total, nine studies published from 1966 to 2014 comparing the MP to VH were included.
resultsThe anatomical recurrence rate for the middle compartment was 4-7 % after VH, whereas recurrence was very rare after the MP. The re-operation rate because of symptomatic recurrence was higher after VH (9-13.1 %) compared with MP (3.3-9.5 %) and more patients needed conservative re-intervention (14-15 %) than after MP (10-11 %). After VH, postoperative bleeding and blood loss tended to be greater, bladder lesions and infections more frequent and the operating time longer.
conclusionsThis review is in favour of the MP, which seems to be an efficient and safe treatment for uterine prolapse. We suggest that the MP might be considered a durable alternative to VH in uterine prolapse repair.
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.