Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34125240›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022

Long term outcomes of laparoscopic sacro/colpo-hysteropexy with and without rectopexy for the treatment of prolapse.

Ehud Grinstein, Yara Abdelkhalek, Nikolaus Veit-Rubin, Ohad Gluck, Bruno Deval

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07411898 (One-year Outcomes of an Innovative Laparoscopic Pectopexy Procedure Using Inverted T-mesh for Treatment of Advanced Uterine and Anterior Vaginal Prolapse.), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07411898 active not recruitingnot on this map

One-year Outcomes of an Innovative Laparoscopic Pectopexy Procedure Using Inverted T-mesh for Treatment of Advanced Uterine and Anterior Vaginal Prolapse.

TypeobservationalSponsorChung Shan Medical UniversityRan2020 to 2026Enrolled67ConditionsPelvic Organ Prolapse, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Vaginal Surgery, Pectopexy, SacrocolpopexyArmsLaparoscopic pectopexy, Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Ehud GrinsteinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel.
Yara AbdelkhalekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Hôtel-Dieu de France University Hospital, St Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon. yaraabdelkhalek1@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8139-7182
Nikolaus Veit-RubinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ohad GluckDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel.
Bruno DevalDepartment of Functional Pelvic Surgery & Oncology, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Ramsay Santé, Paris, France.
Tel Aviv University · ILGénérale de Santé · FRMedical University of Vienna · ATSaint Joseph University · LB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisLaparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH), sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and ventral rectopexy (LVR) with mesh are advocated for surgical treatment of pelvic and rectal prolapse. Our study aims at showing the feasibility of concomitant laparoscopic prolapse repair by comparing perioperative and long-term outcomes of LSH or LSC with and without LVR.

methodsThis is a retrospective study carried out on 348 women operated on between July 2009 and July 2019. Patients were divided into four groups: (1) LSH only, (2) LSC only, (3) LSH + LVR and (4) LSC + LVR. POP-Q scores and satisfaction questionnaires were recorded at baseline and then annually. Outcomes were defined as subjective failure (vaginal/rectal prolapse symptoms), objective failure (prolapse to/beyond the hymen, full thickness rectal prolapse) or retreatment for prolapse. Complications were collected and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

resultsThree hundred forty-eight women underwent laparoscopic repair for pelvic and rectal prolapse (219, 44, 66 and 19 in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 (4-174) months. Success rate for both rectal and pelvic prolapse was 90.2%. Recurrence rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.3%, 6.8%, 9.1% and 10.5% for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Significant improvement was noticed in satisfaction questionnaires in all groups. There was no difference in perioperative and late complications.

conclusionThe combined laparoscopic procedure appears to be safe and efficient in treating pelvic and rectal prolapse. Appropriate patient selection and available surgical expertise should determine whether to perform these procedures combined or separately.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPelvic Organ ProlapseRectal ProlapseUterine ProlapseFemaleHumansRetrospective StudiesSurgical MeshTreatment OutcomeLaparoscopicProlapseRectopexySacrocolpopexySacrohysteropexy

Identifiers

PMID34125240
OpenAlexW3171360777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.