Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2018
Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse using validated questionnaires: 2-year prospective study.
Observational study in International urogynecology journal, 2018. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Satisfactory medium-long term patient reported outcomes after laparoscopic single-mesh sacrohysteropexy.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSurgical options for uterovaginal prolapse can be categorized into uterus conservation-e.g., laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSHP) or vaginal hysterectomy (VH). There is insufficient reliable information on long-term comparative outcomes of these procedures. The primary aim of this study was to compare subjective and objective outcomes of LSHP and VH. The secondary aim was to record adverse events, recurrent prolapse, and new-onset stress urinary incontinence (SUI) up to 2 years.
methodsWomen with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse who opted for either LSHP or VH were included. Subjective outcomes were compared at 1 and 2 years from baseline using the validated questionnaires. Objective/anatomical outcomes using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system were assessed before and at 3 months after surgery. Adverse events, recurrent prolapse, and new-onset SUI was recorded up to 2 years.
resultsThe study assessed 226 women with uterovaginal prolapse; 125 opted for surgery (44 LSHP, 81 VH). There was no statistically significant difference in symptom domains between groups at baseline and 1 and 2 years. At 3 months POP-Q, greater improvement was seen in points Ba and Ap in the LSHP group compared to VH group and smaller genital hiatus was seen in the VH group. Adverse events, recurrent prolapse, or new-onset SUI were not significantly different in the two groups.
conclusionsBoth LSHP and VH are effective surgical options for uterovaginal prolapse. At 2 years, both procedures had similar improvement in symptom domains, overall scores, adverse events, recurrent prolapse, and new-onset SUI. Long-term randomized studies are needed.
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.