ArticleCentral European journal of urology2018
Modified posterior intravaginal slingplasty: does the additional bilateral tape attachment to the sacrospinous ligament improve the results?
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of native vaginal and ligament surgery for cure of pelvic organ prolapse and overactive bladder.Annals of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Simulated operations (SOs) apply mechanical support to structures to confirm symptom causation.Annals of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: when part of the posterior fornix syndrome is potentially curable surgically.Annals of translational medicine · 2024Review
- Structural, functional, and dysfunctional pelvic anatomy.Annals of translational medicine · 2024Review
- The impact of sacrospinous ligament fixation on pre-existing nocturia and co-existing pelvic floor dysfunction symptoms.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHigh failure and recurrent prolapse remains an important issue for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. The posterior intravaginal slingplasty (PIVS) is a minimally invasive, transperineal technique providing level I support, by creating neo-sacrouterine ligaments using a mesh. In order to reduce the POP recurrence rate, achieve a safer apical support and thereby better functional outcomes, we attached PIVS tape to the sacrospinous ligament bilaterally and compared the anatomical and functional outcomes for our modified technique versus the original PIVS. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe evaluated 368 patients, with a symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in various grades, who had undergone a total pelvic floor reconstruction. Seventy-seven of 368 (21%) patients underwent the original PIVS, 291 (79%) patients were treated by the modified PIVS. When necessary, the following procedures were added: anterior transobturator mesh, posterior wall repair, perineal body repair and suburethral transobturator sling. All had follow-up checks for at least one year. The primary outcome was an objective cure, defined as grade 0 or grade 1 according to Baden-Walker. Secondary outcomes were prolapse recurrence, symptoms, visual analogue scales for satisfaction, quality of life, recommendation, reoperation rates and presence of complications.
resultsThe total reconstructions we made, using each technique, were successful. We achieved an apical success rate of 97 to 96%, on average, with the modified and original IVS respectively. We found a statistically significant improvement in urge incontinence and frequency symptoms than the original PIVS with our modified technique.
conclusionsModified PIVS in combination with concomitant procedures generates high anatomical and functional cure rates with low complications and recurrences.
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.