Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37632537›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023

Safety and medium-term outcome of redo laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a matched case-control study.

Emma Bauters, Ann-Sophie Page, Laura Cattani, Susanne Housmans, Frank Van der Aa, André D'Hoore, Jan Deprest

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The Surgical Challenge of the Repeat Sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emma BautersDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Ann-Sophie PageDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Laura CattaniDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Susanne HousmansDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Frank Van der AaDepartment of Development and Regeneration, Unit Urogenital, Abdominal and Plastic Surgery, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
André D'HooreDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan DeprestDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Hospitals KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. jan.deprest@uzleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0002-4920-945X
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisIn the case of recurrent apical prolapse following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP), one may consider a "redo" procedure. We hypothesized that redo LSCP may carry an increased complication risk and less favorable outcomes when compared with primary procedures.

methodsThis is a single-center, matched case-control (1:4) study, comparing all 39 women who had a redo LSCP and 156 women who had a primary LSCP for symptomatic apical prolapse between 2002 and 2020 with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Matching was based on proximity to the operation date. The primary outcome was the occurrence of intraoperative and early postoperative complications within 3 months. Secondary outcomes included subjective (Patient Global Impression of Change [PGIC] ≥4) and objective (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification [POP-Q] stage <2) success rates, surgical variables, graft-related complications and reinterventions.

resultsThere was no difference in the rate of intraoperative and early postoperative complications (redo: 21.1% vs control: 29.8%, OR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.27-1.48). The conversion rate was higher in redo patients (redo: 10.3% vs control: 0.6, OR: 17.71, 95% CI 1.92-163.39). Early postoperative complications were comparable: they were mainly infectious and managed by antibiotics. At a comparable follow-up (redo: 81 months (IQR: 54) vs control: 71.5 months (IQR: 42); p=0.37), there were no differences in graft-related complications (redo: 17.9% vs control: 9.6%, p=0.14) and reinterventions for complications (redo: 12.8% vs control: 5.1%, p=0.14) or prolapse (redo: 15.4% vs control: 8.3%, p=0.18). Subjective (redo: 88.5% vs control: 80.2%, p=0.41) and objective (redo: 31.8% vs control: 24.7%, p=0.50) success rates were also comparable.

conclusionsIn our experience, redo LSCP is as safe and effective as a primary LSCP, but there is a higher risk of conversion.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPelvic Organ ProlapseCase-Control StudiesFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeOutcomePelvic organ prolapseRedoSacrocolpopexySafety

Identifiers

PMID37632537
OpenAlexW4386191660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.