ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018
Sacrospinous ligament fixation for hysteropexy: does concomitant anterior and posterior fixation improve surgical outcome?
Article 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for Hysteropexy: Does Concomitant Anterior and Posterior Fixation Using a Posterior Approach Route Improve Surgical Outcomes?International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- The Pull-Out Strength of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in a Cadaver Model.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Feasibility of the CT-Image-Guided Colpopexy: A Novel, Needle-Based Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for Treatment of Vaginal Apical Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Long-Term Outcome of Anterior-Apical Mesh (Surelift) Versus Anterior Colporrhaphy and Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- A novel anchoring system for pelvic organ prolapse repair: an observational study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Observational
- Bilateral Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation with Vaginal Hysterectomy for Apical Uterovaginal Prolapse.International neurourology journal · 2022Article
- The resurrection of sacrospinous fixation: unilateral apical sling hysteropexy.International urogynecology journal · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisUterine preservation in uterine prolapse is an option for young patients. We hypothesized that sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) with anchorage to both the anterior and posterior cervix (SSH-ap) would have a better outcome than SSH with anchorage to the posterior cervix only (SSH-p).
methodsThis was a retrospective study including 75 patients who underwent SSH at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between March 2008 and August 2013. Five were excluded due to incomplete data. Of the remaining 70 patients, 35 underwent SSH-p between March 2008 and June 2011, and 35 underwent SSH-ap between June 2010 and August 2013. The primary outcome was the objective anatomical result, and a successful outcome was considered anatomical correction (POP-Q stage 1 or less) of anterior and apical prolapse. Subjective outcome was evaluated using the POPDI-6 questionnaire, and a patient response of "No or mild abdominal organ falling out sensation" together with "No or mild heaviness" was considered to indicate a successful outcome. Anterior fornix and cervical diameter measurements were included. The secondary outcome was quality of life according to the UDI-6, IIQ-7, POPDI-6, and PISQ-12 questionnaires. The 3-year outcome was used for comparison.
resultsThe subjective overall cure rates were significantly different between the SSH-p and SSH-ap groups (74.3% and 94.3%, respectively; p = 0.023). However, the objective overall cure rates were not significantly different (74.3% and 82.9%, respectively).
conclusionAnchorage of the anterior cervix and vaginal wall together with the usual posterior anchorage yield better subjective outcomes and apical suspension at 3 years after surgery than anchorage of the posterior cervix and vaginal wall only. The cervix position affected the subjective outcome. Concurrent trachelectomy did not affect the outcome.
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.