ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023
Laparoscopic pectopexy with native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023. 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.
- Comparison of 1-year outcomes after uterine-preserving laparoscopic pectopexy using an inverted T-shaped mesh versus the horizontal DynaMesh: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Observational
- Clinical application of laparoscopic pectopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: efficacy and safety.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life After Laparoscopic Pectopexy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Laparoscopic pectopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP): how, why, when: a narrative review of the literature.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe use of mesh for vaginal repair is currently problematic; consequently, there is increased interest in native tissue repair. Combining native tissue repair with sufficient mesh-applied apical repair might provide effective treatment. We describe the study focusing on the combination of pectopexy and native tissue repair.
methodsBetween April 2020 and November 2021, 49 patients with symptomatic stage III or IV were treated with laparoscopic pectopexy combined with native tissue repair. The mesh was solely used for apical repair. All other clinically relevant defects were treated with native tissue repair. The perioperative parameters including surgical time, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications were recorded. The anatomical cure rate was evaluated according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Questionnaire (POP-Q) assessment. Validated questionnaires of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) were recorded to evaluate the symptom severity and quality of life.
resultsThe mean duration of follow-up was 15 months. All domains of POP-Q, PFDI-20, and PFIQ-7 scores improved significantly after surgery. No major complications, mesh exposure, or mesh complication occurred during the follow-up period.
conclusionThe overall repair concept of laparoscopic pectopexy as the core, assisted by vaginal natural tissue repair for severe pelvic organ prolapse can achieve satisfactory clinical results and improve patient satisfaction.
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.