ArticleBMC surgery2022
Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- vNOTES vs Minimally Invasive Colpopexy: National Study and Literature Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Quality-of-life improvements in patients after various surgical treatments for pelvic organ prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Transvaginal natural Orifical transluminal Endoscopy for sacrocolpopexy: A case series report.Heliyon · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the middle-term clinical outcomes of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for apical prolapse.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced apical prolapse who underwent either TS-LSC or LSC between May 2017 to June 2019 were enrolled. Baseline demographics, perioperative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) scores, pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) score and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score were collected at 2 years.
results89 subjects were analyzed: 46 in TS-LSC and 43 in LSC group. Follow-up time was 38.67 ± 7.46 vs 41.81 ± 7.13 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were similar except that pain score was lower (2.37 ± 0.90 vs 3.74 ± 1.05) and cosmetic score was higher (9.02 ± 0.75 vs 7.21 ± 0.89) in TS-LSC group (P < 0.05). Complication rates did not differ between groups. 3 mesh exposure in each group were noted. Recurrence rate was 2.17% in TS-LSC and 6.98% in LSC, no apical recurrence occurred. Constipation was the most common postoperative symptom. Besides, patients in TS-LSC group had better POP-Q C point (- 6.83 ± 0.54 vs - 6.39 ± 0.62, P < 0.05), and similar Aa, Ap and TVL values. Bladder and pelvic symptoms were improved in both groups, but colorectal symptoms were not relieved. There were no differences of PISQ-12 scores between groups.
conclusionTS-LSC was not inferior to LSC at 2 years. Patients may benefit from its mild pain, better cosmetic effect and better apical support as well as good safety and efficacy. TS-LSC is a promising considerable choice for advanced vaginal apical prolapse. Trial registration ChiCTR2000032334, 2020-4-26 (retrospectively registered).
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.