Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37742204›Full record

ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2023

Practice of laparoscopic prolapse surgery in Europe - ESGE Survey.

B Lambert, L de Landsheere, G K Noé, R Devassy, H Ferreira, J Dubuisson, J Deprest, R Botchorishvili

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Sacrocolpopexy: The Way I Do It.International urogynecology journal · 2024
    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

8 authors.

B Lambert
L de Landsheere
G K Noé
R Devassy
H Ferreira
J Dubuisson
J Deprest
R Botchorishvili

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sacrocolpopexy is considered as the "gold standard" for management of women with apical prolapse. Numerous technical variants are being practiced. The first aim of this survey was to determine the habits of practice of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) in Europe. The second aim was to determine whether surgeons who perform laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair are familiar with the practice of alternative techniques and with mesh-less laparoscopic treatment of prolapse. The questionnaire was designed by the Urogynaecology Special Interest Group of the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE). All ESGE-members were invited by email to respond to this survey consisting of 54 questions divided in different categories. Following review of ESGE member's responses, we have highlighted the great heterogeneity concerning the practice of LSCP and important variability in performance of concomitant surgeries. Alternative techniques are rarely used in practice. Furthermore, the lack of standardisation of the many surgical steps of a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is mainly due to the lack of evidence. There is a need for training and teaching in both standard and newer innovative techniques as well as the reporting of medium and long-term outcomes of both standard laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and any of its alternatives.

Identifiers

PMID37742204
PMCPMC10643013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.