ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Retrospective analysis of apical prolapse correction by unilateral pectineal suspension: perioperative and short-term results.
Article 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term results of apical prolapse correction by unilateral pectineal suspension: A clinical trial.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Trial
- Unilateral pectineal suspension with mesh as a rescue procedure when sacrocolpopexy is not feasible: a case series.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Assessment of pelvic organ prolapse with the Pelvic Inclination Correction System: defining the normal range and threshold to pathology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Total Pelvic Floor Lifting: A New Approach for the Anatomic Repair of Pelvic Floor Hypermobility and Vaginal Laxity in Parous Women.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Apical prolapse correction by unilateral pectineal suspension.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe have previously published the novel method of unilateral pectineal suspension (UPS) for apical prolapse correction. UPS provides mesh-free midline uterus suspension using a single non-absorbable suture to attach the anterior cervix to the lateral part of the iliopectineal ligament. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to analyze the short-term efficacy, perioperative complication rate, and overall patient acceptance of the new UPS surgical concept.
methodsForty-seven patients with POP-Q stage 2-4 who underwent robotic UPS between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 were included in the study. Patient data were taken retrospectively from the patient files. Treatment success was the primary endpoint, measured both objectively using a defined composite endpoint and subjectively according to patients' acceptance 3-6 months after surgery during a follow-up examination. Secondary outcome measures included complications and conversions, and effect of additional procedures on operative time.
resultsTreatment success as measured by the defined composite endpoint was 93.6% for the entire cohort. No complications or conversions occurred. Mean operation time for isolated UPS was 46.5 min (n = 33 patients). UPS can be easily combined with additional surgical procedures for repair of remaining pelvic floor defects, incontinence surgery or other indications. Additional procedures performed had a significant influence on operation time (p < 0.0005, n = 14).
conclusionsUPS shows highly favorable results when looking at an unselected cohort of patients in need of primary POP surgery with respect to established quality parameters of POP repair.
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.