ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2015
Should we add unilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation to vaginal hysterectomy in management of stage 3 and stage 4 pelvic organ prolapse?
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of sacrospinous ligament fixation during vaginal hysterectomy on postoperative de novo stress incontinence occurrence: a prospective study with 2-year follow-upTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2020Trial
- Ligaments stabilizing the sacrum and sacroiliac joint: a comprehensive review.Neurosurgical review · 2022Review
- Is performing sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy and McCall's culdoplasty for advanced uterovaginal prolapse preferable over McCall's culdoplasty alone?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare ''vaginal hysterectomy alone'' with ''vaginal hysterectomy with prophylactic unilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation'' in terms of intraoperative complications and 1-year anatomic outcomes and symptoms in patients aged over 50 years who presented with stage 3 or 4 pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-five patients underwent vaginal hysterectomy alone and 32 patients underwent vaginal hysterectomy with unilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation because of benign pathology between January 2012, and June 2014, were retrospectively analyzed in this study. The patients' demographic data and preoperative and intraoperative findings were obtained from the hospital records and noted. The patients were invited by phone to a follow-up visit to assess their 1-year anatomic outcomes and symptoms.
resultsThere was no significant demographic difference between the patients who underwent vaginal hysterectomy alone and those who had a vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation. Both length of operation and hospital stay were significantly longer in the patients who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation (p<0.001); intraoperative complications requiring blood transfusion were also significantly more frequent in these patients compared with the patients who underwent vaginal hysterectomy only (p=0.048). Recurrence of vaginal vault prolapse was significantly more frequent in the patients with vaginal hysterectomy alone compared with those who had both vaginal hysterectomy and sacrospinous ligament fixation (p=0.035).
conclusionUnilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation might be added to vaginal hysterectomy in patients with stage 3 or 4 POP who are predicted to have long survival times. However, further studies with a larger sample size are needed in this area of research.
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.