ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2022
Medium term anatomical and functional outcomes following modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
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 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with mesh fixation: a randomized trial comparing synthetic cyanoacrylate glue to sutures.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Very long-term outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse repair.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe evaluated the anatomical and functional outcomes following modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) utilizing deep dissection of the vaginal walls and distal mesh fixation at the anterior and posterior compartments. We hypothesized that anatomical and functional outcomes improve after this modified LSC technique.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of all women (n = 240) who underwent LSC for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) from January to December 2017 in a tertiary center. POP-Q staging, validated questionnaires (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form [ICIQ-SF] and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-Short Form), and uroflowmetry were used to evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using McNemar test and repeated measures analysis of variance with Fisher's least significant difference post hoc (p < 0.05).
resultsThe anatomical success rate is 96%, with a prolapse recurrence rate of 3.8% at 3-year follow-up. Bulge symptoms and anatomical compartments were significantly improved after LSC. Clinically, there were significant improvements after LSC in voiding dysfunction and bowel symptoms. Also, there was a significant increase in stress urinary incontinence and non-significant decrease in mixed urinary incontinence and urge urinary incontinence. ICIQ-SF and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory 8 scores were significantly lower after LSC, signifying improvement in incontinence and bowel symptoms.
conclusionOur modified LSC technique is safe and effective in restoring level 1 and level 2 supports, without adverse effects on urinary and bowel function. Bladder and bowel symptoms have also been found to keep improving over time.
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.