ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Clinical Characteristics of Partial Versus Total Colpocleisis for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in China.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Colpocleisis for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after tension-free vaginal mesh repair: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
- De novo urinary incontinence and lower urinary tract symptoms after colpocleisis: A single-center prospective study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Colpocleisis as an obliterative surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: is it still a viable option in the twenty-first century? Narrative review.International urogynecology journal · 2022Review
- How does colpocleisis for pelvic organ prolapse in older women affect quality of life, body image, and sexuality? A critical review of the literature.Women's health (London, England)Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe causes of recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are sufficiently understood. However, few studies are available evaluating reoperation for recurrence of POP. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent POP.
methodsWe reviewed data from patients with recurrent POP who underwent LerFort colpocleisis at a center between March 2012 and April 2017. Quality of life was assessed using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire (PFDI-20) scores. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I) was used to assess self-perceived success and subjective measures of satisfaction. The Clavien-Dindo classification (CD) was used to assess the safety of the procedure. Chi-square and paired t-tests were used to compare the same patients before and after treatment in the follow-up.
resultsTwenty-six patients with recurrent POP after previous prolapse surgery underwent LeFort colpocleisis. Most of these patients had at least one comorbidity. The mean age (years) was 71.8 (7.3). The mean time to recurrent POP was 5.602 (3.643) years. There were no intraoperative bladder lesions or rectal lesions. At mean follow-up of 33.1 months, all patients had no recurrence (< stage 2), significant resolution of awareness of prolapse (P < 0.05), and significantly improved satisfaction on PGI-I after surgery. Minor complications were classified as CD II level in four cases (15.4%).
conclusionThis study suggests that LeFort colpocleisis is feasible and safe for recurrent POP, especially in older women with comorbidities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31069411What 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.