ArticleBMC urology2020
Anatomical and functional outcomes after hysterectomy and bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation for stage IV uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective case series.
Article in BMC urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02998216 (Pelvic Floor Symptoms and Patients´ Satisfaction After Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation for the Primary Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse ICS-POPQ Stage IV), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Pelvic Floor Symptoms and Patients´ Satisfaction After Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation for the Primary Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse ICS-POPQ Stage IV: A Prospective Observational Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technical Challenges and Surgical Considerations in Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for Apical Prolapse Repair.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of Arcus Tendineus Fascia Pelvis Versus Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension at the Time of Hysterectomy for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF): an old method with new horizons.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAim of this study is to examine pelvic floor symptoms, anatomical results and patients' satisfaction after sacrospinous vaginal fixation for stage 4 pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsAll patients with stage 4 pelvic organ prolapse were treated with vaginal hysterectomy, native tissue cystocele and rectocele repair and bilateral sacrospinous vaginal fixation. Anatomical and functional outcomes according to the POPq classification system and the German version of the Australian pelvic floor questionnaire were assessed. Changes between baseline, first follow-up and second follow-up were assessed by the paired Wilcoxon rank test using R, version 3.5.1.
results20 patients were included in the study. Scores in all four domains of the pelvic floor symptom questionnaire (bladder, bowel, prolapse, sexual function) were significantly improved at 6 and 12-months follow-up. One patient presented with a symptomatic stage 3 cystocele that needed a second surgical intervention and two patients needed surgery due to a de novo stress urinary incontinence. There were no perioperative adverse events and all patients reported full satisfaction after surgery.
conclusionsThe vaginal approach with hysterectomy, native tissue repair and bilateral sacrospinous vaginal fixation seems to be a safe and effective method for the treatment of advanced stage POP, offering excellent relief in all pelvic floor symptoms.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02998216 ), December 20th, 2016. Prospectively registered.
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.