SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2023
Comparative study of absorbable suture and permanent suture in sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Graft-Related Complications and Recurrence Following Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy With Xenografts and Allografts.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- Sacrocolpopexy: The Way I Do It.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study was to compare the surgical results and the complications of absorbable suture (AS) versus permanent suture (PS) in sacrocolpopexy (SCP).
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles in which researchers compared AS with PS in SCP. The primary outcomes were the surgical success rate and suture-related complications (suture exposure/erosion, mesh erosion, and suture removal). All analyses were performed with Review Manager 5.3.
resultsFour articles involving 689 patients were ultimately included. Our findings demonstrated that AS had similar surgical success rates to those of PS (OR=1.34; 95% CI, 0.60-2.96) and no significant differences in failure rates were noted between the two groups (OR=0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.66). Subgroup analyses in patients with anatomical failure revealed no significant differences in recurrent posterior prolapse (OR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.10) or in recurrent apical (OR=0.64; 95% CI, 0.03-13.66) or anterior prolapse (OR=0.45; 95% CI, 0.13-1.57). However, the AS group were at a lower risk of suture exposure/erosion (OR=0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.58) and a lower suture removal rate (OR=0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.61) and retreatment (OR=0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82), but the mesh erosion was not significantly different (OR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.49-2.08).
conclusionsThe data showed that AS had a similar success rate, less exposure/erosion, and were less likely to be removed and require retreatment than PS, which supported the notion that AS is as effective as PS but safer.
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.