ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Long-term efficacy and patient satisfaction of Le Fort colpocleisis for the treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Clinical Characteristics of Partial Versus Total Colpocleisis for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in China.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Obliterative Repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Retrospective Cohort Comparing Three Techniques.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Pyometra-An Atypical Complication Following LeFort Colpocleisis: Narrative Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Evaluation and Management of Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Current urology reports · 2025Review
- The "Repeat Colpocleisis": A Literature Review and Case Report.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
- LeFort Colpocleisis: Unmet Expectations about Correction of Urinary Symptoms Are Related to Disappointment and Regret.Journal of mid-life healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to investigate the long-term efficacy and patient satisfaction of Le Fort colpocleisis for the treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of patients who underwent Le Fort colpocleisis from January 2007 to August 2018 in our hospital. Follow-up was conducted via outpatient visits or the telephone. Records were reviewed for anatomical recurrence, complications, urinary and intestinal symptoms post-operation, reoperation rate, patient satisfaction, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score, regret rate etc.
resultsA total of 208 patients underwent follow-up. The follow-up time was 60.7 ± 34.18 (12-140) months. There were no intraoperative complications. Postoperative urinary retention occurred in 3.8% of patients (8 out of 208). There was no anatomical recurrence. New or more severe urinary symptoms occurred in 8.7% of patients (18 out of 208); new or more severe intestinal symptoms occurred in 1.9% of patients (4 out of 208). The reoperation rate was 1.44% (3 out of 208). Three cases of reoperation occurred for the following reasons: a case of severe stress urinary incontinence, a case of abscess in the vaginal septum, and a case of uterine malignancy after 2 years of colpocleisis. Patient satisfaction was as follows: 98.6% (205 out of 208) of patients were very satisfied. The PGI-I score was very much improved or improved in 99.5% (207 out of 208) of patients. A total of 0.96% (2 out of 208) of patients regretted undergoing colpocleisis.
conclusionsThe long-term follow-up results showed that Le Fort colpocleisis was a safe and effective surgical procedure associated with high satisfaction. There was a very low regret rate, but the procedure should be taken seriously.
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.