ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Short-term outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy through an anterior approach.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptations for Urogynecologic Surgery in Limited-Resource Settings: How to Do More with Less.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- [Vaginal pelvic floor reconstruction techniques].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Anterior approach sacrospinous hysteropexy: native tissue compared with mesh-augmented repair for primary uterovaginal prolapse management.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Retrospective analysis of apical prolapse correction by unilateral pectineal suspension: perioperative and short-term results.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Comparison of Early Postoperative Outcomes for Vaginal Anterior Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation with or without Transvaginal Mesh Insertion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe posterior approach to sacrospinous hysteropexy has been well studied but little is known about the anterior approach. This study assessed the efficacy and complications of an anterior approach to sacrospinous hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy with apical repair. We hypothesized that anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy has similar efficacy and fewer complications.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent native-tissue anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy (cases) with those who underwent hysterectomy with apical repair (controls). Composite success was defined as (1) leading edge of prolapse not beyond the hymen and apex not descended > 1/3 total vaginal length; (2) no vaginal bulge symptoms; (3) no prolapse retreatment. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were performed as well as a Cox regression analysis for time to failure.
resultsFifty cases and 97 controls were compared. The median follow-up time was 7.6 months. Operative time was shorter in the hysteropexy group (110.7 vs. 155.9 min, p < 0.001). The composite success was 92% for both cases and controls (p = 1.000) with no difference in time to surgical failure (p = 0.183). There were no serious intraoperative complications in the hysteropexy group and six in the control group (3 transfusions, 1 conversion to laparotomy, 1 ureteral injury, 1 cystotomy; p = 0.101). There was no difference in the number of postoperative complications (22.0% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.203).
conclusionsFor primary uterine prolapse, anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy has similar short-term efficacy compared to hysterectomy with apical repair with shorter operative time and a trend towards fewer serious complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33439280What 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.