ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2018
Uterus-sparing vaginolaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse.
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 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biopsychosocial profile of women with pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of a vaginolaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (VLS) technique for treating apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a prospective interventional case series (design classification: Canadian Task Force II3) performed in the endoscopic unit of a tertiary care referral facility and university hospital. We assessed 15 symptomatic parous women with stage ≥2 apical POP according to the POP Quantification (POP-Q) classification. Interventions comprised posterior colpotomy with mesh fixation to the uterosacral ligaments and the back of the uterus that was further fixed to the anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum using a tacker via laparoscopy.
resultsThe main outcome was a significant postoperative improvement in prolapse and resultant improvement in quality of life (QoL) after VLS. Six patients required concomitant reconstructive procedures. Mean operative time for the vaginal phase was 8.54 ± 3.10 (7-12) min and 32.36 ± 8.2 (27-41) min. for the laparoscopic phase Mean duration of VLS ranged from 30 to 50 min. At the 6-months follow-up, the procedure was successful in 14 of 15 patients (93.34%); one woman (6.66%) presented with recurrence at a lower stage. Neither mesh complications nor sacral ostitis were encountered. There was significant improvement in vaginal symptoms, sexual well-being, QoL, and clinical staging after the procedure.
conclusionBy eliminating all forms of intraperitoneal suturing, performing a posterior colpotomy, and the advent of tackers without evidence of sacral ostitis, VLS seems to be a simple, feasible, effective, and fast approach for treating POP.
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.