ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Manchester procedure: A systematic review of recurrence, perioperative measures, and financial cost, and a scoping review of sexual dysfunction, gynecologic cancer, and obstetric outcomes.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Treatment outcomes of Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy for mid-compartment prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- A Systematic Review (and Meta-Analysis) and Global Expert Consensus Statements (U-POP): The Manchester Procedure.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- On the Shoulders of Giants. Commentary on "The Rise and Fall of the Uterine Interposition Operation".International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Native tissue repair of the female pelvic floor: A four-level surgical concept.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Review
- Anterior approach sacrospinous hysteropexy: native tissue compared with mesh-augmented repair for primary uterovaginal prolapse management.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Mostafa Maged sling technique to treat prolapsed uterus in an easy way (New Technique).Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2023Article
- Cervical cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Letter to the editor: Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in uterine prolapse surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Recurrent surgery in uterine prolapse: A nationwide register study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- Vaginal vault prolapse and recurrent surgery: A nationwide observational cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2022Observational
- Native tissue sacrospinous hysteropexy from an anterior approach.International urogynecology journal · 2021Review
- Short-term outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy through an anterior approach.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Letter to the editor: "Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair".International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Commentary on 'Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques'.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisUterine prolapse is a common diagnosis. Today no consensus exists on which operation technique is ideal to treat apical prolapse. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with suspension of the vaginal cuff is the most frequently used. The popularity of uterus-preserving techniques is increasing. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of vaginal native tissue operations to treat primary apical prolapse, evaluated on risk of relapse surgery.
methodsData were obtained from the Danish National Patient Registry (NPR), which contains all operations performed in Denmark. Patients operated on for primary apical prolapse in Denmark 2010-2016 were included and followed until 2017. Clinical data were obtained from the Danish Urogynecological Database. Patients who were previously hysterectomized or operated on for prolapse in the apical compartment were excluded. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis and adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, preoperative prolapse stage and previous POP operations.
resultsIn total, 7247 operations were included. The hazard ratio (HR) for relapse operation in the apical compartment was significantly higher after sacrospinous hysteropexy (SH) compared with the Manchester-Fothergill procedure (MP) [40.2 confidence interval (CI) 21.6-74.7] and VH (8.5 CI: 6.0-12.1). Likewise, the HR was higher in the anterior compartment after SH compared with MP (4.3 CI: 2.9-6.4) and VH (2.8 CI: 2.0-4.0). No convincing difference was found in the posterior compartment. The 5-year reoperation rates were 30%, 7% and 11% after SH, MP, and VH, respectively.
conclusionsSacrospinous hysteropexy has exceedingly high numbers of reoperations due to prolapse recurrence.
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.