ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2016
Sacrospinous ligament suspension with transobturator mesh versus sacral colpopexy for genital prolapse.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of abdominal sacral colpopexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension with the use of vaginal mesh for apical prolapse.
methodThis retrospective study was conducted from 2005 to 2012 and included 89 women with apical prolapse who underwent surgery. Assessments included pre- and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage. Rates of objective cure and immediate/late complications were compared.
resultsIn total, 41 of the 89 women underwent sacrospinous ligament suspension, and 48 of the women underwent abdominal sacral colpopexy. A total of 40.4% of the women had vault prolapse (p=0.9361). Most of them had no complications (93.2%) (p=0.9418). Approximately 30% of the women had late complications; local pain was the main symptom and was found only in women who underwent the abdominal procedure (25.6%) (p=0.001). Only the women who were submitted to the vaginal procedure had mesh exposure (18.4%). The objective success rate and the rate of anterior vaginal prolapse (p=0.2970) were similar for both techniques.
conclusionSacrospinous ligament suspension was as effective and had a similar objective success rate as abdominal sacral colpopexy for the treatment of apical prolapse. Sacrospinous ligament suspension performed with the use of vaginal mesh in the anterior compartment was effective in preventing anterior vaginal prolapse after surgery.
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.