ArticleUrology annals
The autologous rectus fascia sheath sacrocolpopexy and sacrohysteropexy, a mesh free alternative in patients with recurrent uterine and vault prolapse: A contemporary series and literature review.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05628831 (COMPARISON BETWEEN AUTOLOGOUS TISSUE RECONSTRUCTION USING vNOTES AND TRADITIONAL SURGERY IN TREATMENT OF PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
COMPARISON BETWEEN AUTOLOGOUS TISSUE RECONSTRUCTION USING vNOTES AND TRADITIONAL SURGERY IN TREATMENT OF PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous laparoscopic harvest and trans-vaginal implantation of autologous rectus fascia in the treatment of severe anterior vaginal prolapse.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Sacrocolpopexy: Alternatives to Mesh Grafts.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Posterior rectus fascia prolapse (PREFAP) repair: a new native tissue approach to pelvic organ prolapse via vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- Biologic Grafts for Use in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: a Contemporary Review.Current urology reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAbout 40% of women suffer pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in a lifetime. The current standard intervention for vault prolapse is a mesh sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy. However, patients and surgeons are increasingly hesitant to use mesh given recent the UK and Food and Drug Administration warnings and litigation. A possible alternative is to use autologous tissue to support the vault, as a mesh-free solution. We report the outcomes from an initial series of autologous rectus fascia sheath (RFS) sacrocolpopexy and sacrohysteropexy in patients with complex pelvic floor dysfunction. PATIENTS AND
methodsAll patients had previous, multiple urological/gynecological surgery and declined standard mesh repairs. All had preoperative videourodynamics and defecating magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. The autologous POP repair was performed using 10-18 cm of rectus sheath with a similar technique to that employing mesh to support the anterior-posterior vaginal walls or encircle the cervix and secured to the sacral promontory.
resultsSeven patients with a mean age of 52 (33-64) years underwent autologous RFS POP repair between 2014 and 2017. Mean follow-up is 16 (range 2-33) months. All patients have durable result at last follow-up. No significant complications are reported.
conclusionsThis is the first report of patients with complex pelvic floor dysfunction and apical POP being managed with autologous RFS sacrocolpopexy/sacrohysteropexy, and only the second report of a free graft being utilized with success. Autologous RFS sacrocolpopexy/sacrohysteropexy avoids the 10%-15% risks of mesh-related complications. Further studies of long-term durability 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.