Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34132865›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022

Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

Giuseppe Campagna, Lorenzo Vacca, Giovanni Panico, Valerio Rumolo, Daniela Caramazza, Andrea Lombisani, Cristiano Rossitto, Pierre Gadonneix, Giovanni Scambia, Alfredo Ercoli

Abstract readMulticenter Study
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. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. [Mid-Term Efficacy Evaluation of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy vs Laparoscopic Pectopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Giuseppe CampagnaUOC Uroginecologia e Chirurgia Ricostruttiva del Pavimento Pelvico, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Lorenzo VaccaUOC Uroginecologia e Chirurgia Ricostruttiva del Pavimento Pelvico, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni PanicoUOC Uroginecologia e Chirurgia Ricostruttiva del Pavimento Pelvico, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy. drgiovannipanico@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5473-9503
Valerio RumoloUOC Uroginecologia e Chirurgia Ricostruttiva del Pavimento Pelvico, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Daniela CaramazzaUOC Uroginecologia e Chirurgia Ricostruttiva del Pavimento Pelvico, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Andrea LombisaniUOC Uroginecologia e Chirurgia Ricostruttiva del Pavimento Pelvico, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Cristiano RossittoUOC Uroginecologia e Chirurgia Ricostruttiva del Pavimento Pelvico, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Pierre GadonneixObstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Fondation St Jean de Dieu, Paris, France.
Giovanni ScambiaUOC di Ginecologia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Scienze della Salute della Donna e del Bambino e di Sanità Pubblica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Alfredo ErcoliPID Ginecologia Oncologica e Chirurgia Ginecologica Miniinvasiva, Università degli studi di Messina, Policlinico G.Martino, Messina, Italy.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Policlinico "G. Martino" · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThe choice of whether or not to preserve the uterus in the case of patients with urogenital prolapse who undergo sacral colpopexy is still debated. We compared objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy (LSHP) and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy (LSCP/SCH) in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse.

methodsThis is a multicenter retrospective cohort study conducted at the Urogynecology Department of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS of Rome and at the Diaconesses Croix Saint Simon Hospital of Paris. We collected data of 136 patients; 78 underwent LSHP and 58 underwent LSCP/SCH for pelvic organ prolapse between January 2016 and December 2017.

resultsPatients of the two groups had similar preoperative characteristics. All patients completed 24-month follow-up evaluation. Overall, anatomical cure rate was 84.6% and 87.9% in the LSHP group and LSCP/SCH group, respectively, without statistically significant differences. In particular, in the LSHP group the anatomical success rate was 94.9%, 92.3% and 92.3% for the apical, anterior and posterior vaginal compartment whereas in the LSHP group LSCP/SCH was 100%, 91.4% and 94.8%, respectively. Subjective success rate was 89.7% among patients who underwent LSHP and 93.1% among women who underwent LSCP/SCH (p = 0.494). The median operative time (OT) was significantly shorter in LSHP. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of estimated blood loss, conversion to laparotomy and intra- and postoperative complications. Patients' satisfaction was high in both groups without statistical differences.

conclusionsBoth laparoscopic procedures are safe and effective in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. LSHP can be offered as an alternative in women who are strongly motivated to preserve the uterus in the absence of abnormal uterine findings.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPelvic Organ ProlapseFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansHysterectomyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUterusHysteropexyProlapseSacrohysteropexy laparoscopySacropexySubtotal hysterectomy

Identifiers

PMID34132865
OpenAlexW3169651247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.