ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
Uterine preservation for advanced pelvic organ prolapse repair: Anatomical results and patient satisfaction.
Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.International urogynecology journal · 2019Pooled it
- A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Dubuisson Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension with Laparoscopic Sacropexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Short-Term Results.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Uterine Fundectomy in Patients With Benign Etiology Undergoing Hysterectomy: New Surgical Technique.JMIR research protocols · 2017Article
- Comparison of the Quality of Life and Female Sexual Function Following Laparoscopic Pectopexy and Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy in Apical Prolapse Patients.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
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
objectiveThe aims of the current study were to evaluate outcomes and patient satisfaction in cases of uterine prolapse treated with vaginal mesh, while preserving the uterus. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study that included all patients operated for prolapse repair with trocar-less vaginal mesh while preserving the uterus between October 2010 and March 2013. Data included: patients pre-and post-operative symptoms, POP-Q and operative complications. Success was defined as prolapse < than stage 2. A telephone survey questionnaire was used to evaluate patient's satisfaction.
resultsSixty-six patients with pelvic organ prolapse stage 3, including uterine prolapse of at least stage 2 (mean point C at+1.4 (range+8-(-1)) were included. Mean follow-up was 22 months. Success rate of the vaginal mesh procedure aimed to repair uterine prolapse was 92% (61/66), with mean point C at -6.7 (range (-1) - (-9)). No major intra-or post-operative complication occurred. A telephone survey questionnaire was conducted post-operatively 28 months on average. Ninety-eight percent of women were satisfied with the decision to preserve their uterus. Eighteen patients (34%) received prior consultation elsewhere for hysterectomy due to their prolapse, and decided to have the operation at our center in order to preserve the uterus.
conclusionsUterine preservation with vaginal mesh was found to be a safe and effective treatment, even in cases with advanced uterine prolapse. Most patients prefer to keep their uterus. Uterus preservation options should be discussed with every patient before surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
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.