ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Suturing methods in prolapse surgery: a biomechanical analysis.
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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mobility analysis of a posterior sacrospinous fixation using a finite element model of the pelvic system.PloS one · 2024Trial
- Pathomechanism of LYPD6 enhancing abnormal hyperostosis via Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway in diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Article
- AbsorbaTackArchives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- Tacks vs. sutures: a biomechanical analysis of sacral bony fixation methods for laparoscopic apical fixations in the porcine model.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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in urogynecological surgery. Abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is currently considered to be the gold standard of treatment. The main problem remains the anatomical point of fixation as well as how sutures are placed. We evaluated the biomechanical difference between an in-line ligament suture versus an orthogonal ligament suture and a single suture versus a continuous suture at the anterior longitudinal ligament in an in-vitro, sacrocolpopexy model.
methodsBiomechanical in-vitro testing was performed on human, non-embalmed, female cadaver pelvises. An Instron test frame (tensinometer) was used for load/ displacement analysis. The average patient age was 75 years. Ligament preparation yielded 15 ligaments available for testing. Recorded parameters were the ultimate load, failure displacement, and stiffness.
resultsThis in-vitro analysis of different suturing methods showed the difference between an orthogonal and an in-line approach to be the ultimate load. Orthogonal sutures displayed an ultimate load of 80 N while in-line suturing yielded only 57 N (p < 0.05). For the anterior longitudinal ligament, this study demonstrated that continuous suture is significantly superior to a single suture regarding failure displacement (p < 0.05).
conclusionWe established baseline biomechanical parameters for the sacrospinous ligament and anterior longitudinal ligament. An orthogonal suture is superior to an in-line suture in an in-vitro model. A continuous suture is superior to a single suture at the anterior longitudinal ligament. Clinical trials might be able to evaluate whether any clinical significance can be established from these findings.
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.