SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Comparison between fascia lata and rectus fascia in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autologous Extracellular Matrix-Based Cell-Free Therapy for Tissue Regeneration Through Trem2Exploration (Beijing, China) · 2026Article
- Technical Feasibility and Early Outcomes of Anatomical Laparoscopic Female Radical Cystectomy with Round Ligament Fixation to Prevent Vaginal Vault Prolapse.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Implementation of Robotic-Assisted Sacrocervicopexy for Apical Organ Prolapse Using the Semitendinosus Tendon-Pilot Study and Analysis of Clinical Outcome.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Sacrocolpopexy: Alternatives to Mesh Grafts.International urogynecology journal · 2025Review
- Mid-term outcomes of moderate-severe cystocele repairing with autologous fascia lata harvested through a small incision.BMC surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this systematic review is to present and compare results from studies that have been using autologous tissue for POP repair.
methodsSystematic review was done according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We aimed to retrieve reports of published and ongoing studies on the efficacy and safety of autologous tissue in vaginal vault prolapse repair. The databases searched were MEDLINE (PubMed interface), Scopus, Cohrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov.
resultsThe success rate varied among studies. In fascia-lata group success rate reports varied from 83 to a 100%, with a median follow-up from 12 to 52 months among studies. Rectus fascia reported success rates from 87 to a 100% with a follow-up of 12 months to longest of 98 months.
conclusionAutologous tissues show satisfying outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy. Sacrocolpopexy procedure with fascia lata has better outcome in term of treatment of prolapse. Harvesting place on lateral side of buttock has more complications in comparison with rectus fascia but size of the graft can be wider in fascia-lata group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38703280What 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.