ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2018
Mini-Laparoscopic Repair of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) by Lateral Suspension with Mesh.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Learning Curve in Urogynecology and Functional Urology: A Systematic Review.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Role of lateral suspension for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Delphi survey of expert panel.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Practice of laparoscopic prolapse surgery in Europe - ESGE Survey.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2023Article
- Comparison of 2-year follow-up outcomes of laparoscopic lateral suspension and sacrospinous fixation in apical compartment prolapse: an observational study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Observational
- Laparoscopic cervicopexy for correction of apical genital prolapse in 10 steps: a pilot study.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Laparoscopy in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era.Gynecological surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study is to analyze the feasibility, safety and learning curve of Mini- Laparoscopic Lateral suspension (LLS) for the treatment of apical and anterior defects following pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsThis is a cohort study on a retrospective series of 35 consecutive patients who underwent Mini-LLS for symptomatic POP between January 2014 and July 2016. All 35 patients were operated at the Gynaecological Unit in S. Chiara Hospital by two senior surgeons (S. Tateo and L. Mereu) and by a team with optimal skills in laparoscopic surgery. Patients were divided in two groups according to two different chronological phases: phase 1 identified the initial 12 cases, phase 2 the last 23 cases. We collected pre-, peri- and post-operative information to analyze the surgical outcomes and learning curve after Mini-LLS procedures.
resultsThe mean LLS-Overall Time (OT) was 107.6 min (range, 185- 63 min). None of the patients had intra-operative complications. No conversion to laparotomy was necessary. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 58 hours in total (SD +/-22). Only in 3 cases (8.6 %) post-operative grade I complications were observed. Recurrence of POP was observed in 3 cases (8.6 %) during a mean follow up of 18 months. The mean OT decreased with experience, in particular after the first 12 cases (phase 1: 113.54 minutes versus phase 2: 104.43 minutes). In consequence, the reduction of time per procedure was statistically significant considering the Cusum Time (CT) (P < .05).
conclusionsMini-LLS with mesh is a safe and reproducible technique with good anatomical results, low complication rates and a short learning curve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31191848PMC6548408What 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.