ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Laparoscopic excision and re-attachment of sacrocolpopexy mesh.
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.
- The Surgical Challenge of the Repeat Sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation After Failed Sacrocolpopexy: A Case Series.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTwo cases are described and surgical techniques for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy are demonstrated at an academic affiliated hospital in patients with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
methodsA laparoscopic approach was taken for surgical intervention, with excision of prior detached vaginal mesh and re-attachment of new sacrocolpopexy mesh.
resultsTwo patients presented with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed surgical treatment. The first case is a 68-year-old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, sacrocolpopexy, and mid-urethral sling performed at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 3 prolapse. Mesh was loosely attached to the cervix. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 1 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. The second case is a 62-year old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post-total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 2 prolapse. The mesh was loosely attached to the vagina. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 0 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. Both patients reported improvement in symptoms and overall quality of life.
conclusionsSurgical management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed initial sacrocolpopexy procedure can be safely accomplished laparoscopically through identification of points of mesh detachment, anatomical landmarks, removal of the prior vaginal portion of the mesh, and attachment of a new surgical mesh to either the sacrum or the sacral portion of the mesh.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34003310What 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.