ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Anterior approach sacrospinous hysteropexy: native tissue compared with mesh-augmented repair for primary uterovaginal prolapse management.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy and hysteropreservation for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Modified paravaginal repair combined with sacrospinous ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Anterior approach sacrospinous hysteropexy: native tissue compared with mesh-augmented repair for primary uterovaginal prolapse management.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisAnterior sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) was popularized by transvaginal mesh kits. Following mesh-kit market withdrawal, we hypothesized similar efficacy through native-tissue reattachment of the pubocervical fascia with fixation of the anterior cervix to the sacrospinous ligament. Few analyses for anterior native-tissue versus mesh-augmented SSH exist.
methodsA retrospective analysis of women who underwent transvaginal anterior SSH between 01 January 2016 and 31 December 2022 was performed. Women who underwent a mesh-augmented (Uphold Lite Vaginal Support System™) versus native-tissue repair were compared. Composite success was defined as no bulge symptoms, no retreatment, and no recurrence beyond the hymen with apex nondescended > one third of the total vaginal length. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were obtained as indicated.
resultsOf 223 women screened, inclusion criteria were met by 124 (40 mesh-augmented; 84 native-tissue). There was no difference in pre-operative characteristics between groups. Composite success was demonstrated in 95.2% of women with a median follow-up of 224 days (range: 30-988). Two women in the mesh-augmented group reported bulge symptoms and underwent re-treatment with a pessary. Four women in the native-tissue group reported bulge symptoms; 3 underwent re-treatment (2 pessary, 1 surgery). There were no differences in composite success rates between groups (p=0.954). There were additionally no differences in intra-operative (p=0.752) or post-operative (p=0.292) complication rates between the groups. There were no mesh-related complications, including exposure or chronic pelvic pain.
conclusionsNinety-five percent of women achieved surgical success and the use of mesh augmentation did not confer added benefit in terms of efficacy or complications when compared with native tissue. Further long-term data are needed to continue our assessment of native-tissue anterior SSH.
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.