Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2023
Five-year surgical outcomes of transvaginal apical approaches in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse.
Trial report 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.
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.
- Long-Term Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Six Surgical Procedures for Apical Suspension.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: Patient Impression of Improvement 1 Year After Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy in Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Stage 2 or Higher.International urogynecology journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisIn women with advanced prolapse, differences in vaginal apex anchoring sites may impact surgical outcomes over time. The primary aim was to compare 5-year surgical outcomes of uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) versus sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) in women with advanced (stage III-IV) prolapse.
methodsA secondary analysis was conducted in a subset of women with advanced prolapse from a multicenter randomized trial comparing ULS versus SSLF and its extended follow-up, using publicly accessible de-identified datasets. The primary outcome was time to failure, defined as any one of (1) apical descent > 1/3 into the vaginal canal or anterior/posterior compartment beyond the hymen, (2) bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms, or (3) re-treatment. Secondary outcomes include symptom severity measured by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI) and adverse events.
resultsOf 285 women, 90/147 (61.2%) in ULS and 88/138 (63.8%) in SSLF had advanced prolapse. Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups except for median-vaginal deliveries (3.0 [2.0, 5.0] versus 3.0 [2.0, 4.0], p < 0.01). The median time to failure was 1.7 years ULS versus 2.0 years SSLF (p = 0.42). Surgical failure increased over time in both groups with no intergroup difference; by year 5, the estimated failure rate was 67.7% ULS versus 71.5% SSLF (adjusted difference -3.8; 95%CI [-21.9, 14.2]). No differences were noted in individual failure components (p > 0.05). POPDI scores improved over 5 years without intergroup difference (ULS -68.0 ± 61.1 versus SSLF -69.9 ± 60.3, adjusted difference -0.1 [-20.0, 19.9]). No difference in adverse events were observed (p > 0.05).
conclusionIn women with advanced prolapse, surgical failure, symptom severity, and adverse events did not differ between ULS and SSLF over 5 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37039859What 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.