Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38691124›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024

Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy.

Matej Vidoman, Vladimir Kalis, Martin Smazinka, Martin Havir, Zdenek Rusavy, Khaled M Ismail

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Matej VidomanDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty Hospital, Trenčín, Slovakia.
Vladimir KalisDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia.
Martin SmazinkaDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia.
Martin HavirDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia.
Zdenek RusavyDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia.
Khaled M IsmailDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia. khaled.ismail@lfp.cuni.cz.

Funding

lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy Cooperatio programlékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy research area MATCLékařská Fakulta v Plzni, Univerzita Karlova Cooperatio programLékařská Fakulta v Plzni, Univerzita Karlova research area MATC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisIt is reported that up to 60% of women would prefer to spare their uterus during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery. A reliable hysteropexy technique is therefore crucial. We aimed to describe the safety profile and initial core patient-reported and clinical outcomes of the Pilsner modification of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS) in comparison with the laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy technique (standard laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy [sLSH]) previously used in our unit.

methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single tertiary referral urogynecological center. All patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy between 1 January 2015, and 31 January 2022 were included in the study. Follow-up clinical, patient-reported, and imaging outcomes at the 12-month follow-up time point are presented.

resultsA total of 87 patients were included. Of these, 49 (56.3%) and 38 (43.7%) underwent sLSH and PiMMS respectively. Low numbers of perioperative complications were found in both groups with no mesh-related complications reported following PiMMS up to 12 months postoperatively. There were no apical compartment failures in either group. There were 8 (17.0%) vs 1 (2.7%) anterior compartment failures (Ba ≤ -1) in the sLSH and PiMMS groups respectively (p = 0.07) at 12 months. At the 1-year follow-up, 42 (89.4%) patients reported a Patient Global Impression of Improvement score of ≤ 2 in the sLSH groups compared with 35 (94.6%) patients following PiMMS.

conclusionsThe PiMMS technique seems to have comparable safety profile and patient-reported outcomes with the sLSH technique. However, there is a trend toward reduced anterior compartment failures with this modification. The findings of this preliminary report need to be re-evaluated in a well-powered prospective study.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresPelvic Organ ProlapseSurgical MeshAgedFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnterior compartmentHysteropexyLaparoscopyMeshProlapseSacrohysteropexy

Identifiers

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.