ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse; a comparison between ipsilateral uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament fixation-a nationwide cohort study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Six Surgical Procedures for Apical Suspension.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- A preliminary clinical report of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in the treatment of moderate and severe pelvic organ prolapse.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisHysterectomy is frequently performed and associated with increased risk of subsequent genital prolapse including vaginal vault prolapse. Ipsilateral uterosacral ligament suspension (IUSLS) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) are two commonly performed surgical techniques to treat vaginal vault prolapse. There is no consensus on the ideal operation technique. The aim of this study was to compare IUSLS and SSLF to treat vaginal vault prolapse based on the number of repeat surgeries.
methodsPreviously hysterectomized patients operated on with IUSLS or SSLF in Denmark in 2010-2016 were included in this nationwide register-based cohort study and followed until June 2017. Data were obtained from Danish National Databases, to which reporting is mandatory by law, entailing high validity and completeness of data. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis adjusted for age, preoperative prolapse stage, smoking, BMI, and previous prolapse surgery.
resultsIn total, 744 patients were included; 384 underwent IUSLS while 360 underwent SSLF. After 5 years, 6.5% of patients operated on with IUSLS and 21.8% operated on with SSLF had a repeat surgery in the apical compartment and 12.4% and 30.6% in any compartment, respectively. The risk of repeat surgery was 4.8 times higher after SSLF compared to IUSLS [confidence interval (CI): 2.7-8.4] in the apical compartment and 2.4 times higher (CI: 1.2-5.1) in the anterior compartment. No difference was seen in the posterior compartment.
conclusionsThis study finds significantly higher numbers of repeat surgeries after SSLF compared to after IUSLS in a Danish nationwide cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32897459What 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.