Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37548513›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2023

Comparison of laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy for apical prolapse: an exploratory randomized controlled trial

Kavita Khoiwal, Kanhu Charan Dash, Amrita Gaurav, Jaya Chaturvedi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Ten Years of Laparoscopic Pectopexy: A Case Series Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Pectopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Scoping Review.International urogynecology journal · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kavita KhoiwalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, IndiaORCID 0000-0002-3156-7486
Kanhu Charan DashDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, IndiaORCID 0000-0001-6148-983X
Amrita GauravDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, IndiaORCID 0000-0002-8672-2463
Jaya ChaturvediDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, IndiaORCID 0000-0003-1222-4565

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy in women with symptomatic apical prolapse. Material and Methods: An interim analysis of an exploratory randomized controlled trial with the primary objective of comparing mesh fixation time and secondary objectives were to compare total operating time, blood loss, and intra-operative and post-operative complications. Additionally, patients completed the Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) questionnaires before surgery and during six months follow-up visit to evaluate the overall improvement in quality of life and sexual function. Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score was calculated on the 7-10 Results: The study included 30 patients; 15 underwent laparoscopic sacropexy, and 15 underwent laparoscopic pectopexy. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. The mean duration of mesh fixation was significantly less with laparoscopic pectopexy (45.00±11.34 minutes) than laparoscopic sacropexy (54.67±9.35 minutes) (p=0.019). The total operating time and blood loss tended to be less in the pectopexy group, but not significantly so. Only one patient in the pectopexy group had a bladder injury. No patient in either group had any post-operative complications. One case in each group had a relapse of apical prolapse. All the domains of PISQ-12, P-QOL, and PGI-I scores improved significantly after both procedures. Conclusion: Laparoscopic pectopexy is a safe, feasible, and comfortable alternative procedure to the standard sacropexy for apical prolapse. We noted significantly less mesh fixation time and less operating time, while blood loss tended to be less with laparoscopic pectopexy than with laparoscopic sacropexy. Post-operative parameters were comparable between techniques. Both corrective techniques for prolapse improved the PGI-I, P-QOL, and PISQ-12 scores.

Indexed as

apical prolapseLaparoscopic pectopexylaparoscopic sacropexymesh fixation

Identifiers

PMID37548513
PMCPMC10493818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.