ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Single-port laparoscopic sacrospinous ligament suspension
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Safety and feasibility analysis of transvaginal extraperitoneal space anatomical sacrospinous ligament suspension in the treatment of moderate to severe pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective comparative cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A Pilot Study of Kocher Forceps-Guided Laparoscopic Transvaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation: Technique and Initial Clinical Experience.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to investigate the feasibility and short-term efficacy of single-port laparoscopic-assisted transvaginal natural cavity endoscopic sacrospinous ligament suspensions (SvNOTES). Methods: A total of 30 patients diagnosed with anterior or/and middle pelvic organ prolapse Stages III and IV underwent natural vaginal cavity (SvNOTES), and 30 patients who underwent conventional sacrospinous ligament (SSLF) were used as a control group. The operation time, blood loss, postoperative POP-Q score, length of hospital stay, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: The operation time for SvNOTE was (60 ± 13) min, which was longer than (30 ± 15) min for SSLF ( Conclusion: Compared with SSLF, single-port laparoscopic sacrospinous ligament suspension
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.