ArticleTzu chi medical journal
Outcomes of laparoscopic hysteropexy and supracervical hysterectomy plus cervicopexy: A retrospective study.
Article in Tzu chi medical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Comparison of Sacrohysteropexy and Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Uterovaginal Prolapse Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- 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
- Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic hysteropexy (LHP) and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy plus cervicopexy (LSHCP) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively included patients who had undergone laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy or hysterectomy plus cervicopexy between January 2015 and May 2019 at Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Taiwan. Age at surgery, body mass index (BMI) at admission, the initial stage of genital prolapse, operative and postoperative data, and anatomical results were recorded. Cure for uterine prolapse was evaluated objectively through vaginal examinations using the POP quantification scale. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at 24 h postoperatively. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare continuous variables.
resultsA total of 23 women were included in the study; 12 had received LHP (
conclusionLHP had a significantly shorter hospital stay and a higher VAS score than LSHCP. LHP and LSHCP are both feasible and effective procedures for correcting uterine prolapse.
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.