ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital 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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the surgical management of apical pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2023Pooled it
- Mesh Exposure After Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy with Concomitant Total Hysterectomy or Uterine Preservation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Positive effects of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on anterior lateral defects and stress urinary incontinence.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the pelvic organ prolapse and vaginal prolapse among the global population.BJUI compass · 2025Review
- Sacrocolpopexy: The Way I Do It.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
- Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Pathological Insights on Polypropylene Mesh Complications From Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Case Series.Cureus · 2024Article
- Robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy vs robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in women with primary advanced apical prolapse: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2023Article
- A Laparoscopic Conservative Surgery Approach to Puerperium Complicated by Uterine Prolapse After Vaginal Delivery: A Case Series.Journal of family & reproductive health · 2023Article
- Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review.International urogynecology journal · 2022Review
- Role of Hysteropexy in the Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Current urology reports · 2022Review
- Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study).BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Comparison of treatment outcomes for native tissue repair and sacrocolpopexy as apical suspension procedures at the time of hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey).BMC women's health · 2020Article
- The Pros and Cons of Hystero-preservation on Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyReview
- Robot-assisted sacro(hystero)colpopexy with anterior and posterior mesh placement: impact on lower bowel tract function and clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
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
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to compare the outcomes in women who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with or without hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
methodsThis was a single-centre prospective study. We included women with symptomatic POP (III-IV stage) who underwent LSC with or without hysterectomy. The preoperative evaluation included a history, clinical examination and urodynamic test; all patients completed FSFI, UDI-6 and IIQ-7 questionnaires. They were followed up at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery and then annually thereafter with the same preoperative flow chart. At the last visit, they also completed the PGI-I questionnaire.
resultsBetween 2012 and 2016, a total of 136 patients with POP were included (82 in the LSC with hysterectomy group and 54 in the hysteropexy group). At a median follow-up of 65.3 months (36-84 months), there were improvements in the anatomical and functional outcomes of both groups without differences between the two approaches. The apical success rate was 100% in all women, without recurrence in either group; the anterior and posterior success rates of hysterectomy were higher than those of uterine preservation.
conclusionThis study showed that there were no differences in the anatomical and functional outcomes between LSC with or without hysterectomy for POP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32140751What 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.