Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38877319›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024

Role of lateral suspension for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Delphi survey of expert panel.

Tommaso Simoncini, Andrea Panattoni, Tina Cadenbach-Blome, Nicola Caiazzo, Maribel Calero García, Marta Caretto, Fu Chun, Eric Francescangeli, Giorgia Gaia, Andrea Giannini and 15 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Safety and Effectiveness of G-MeshJournal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. 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

25 authors.

Tommaso SimonciniDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Reproductive Medicine, University of Pisa, via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy. tommaso.simoncini@unipi.it.ORCID 0000-0002-2971-0079
Andrea PanattoniAOU Pisana: Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Tina Cadenbach-BlomeAsklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Germany.
Nicola CaiazzoDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ospedale Giovanni Battista Grassi di Ostia, Azienda ASL Roma 3, Rome, Italy.
Maribel Calero GarcíaDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Materno-Infantil Quirónsalud, Seville, Spain.
Marta CarettoDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Reproductive Medicine, University of Pisa, via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Fu ChunDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Second Xiangya Hospital Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Eric FrancescangeliDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istituto Clinico Sant'Anna, Brescia, Italy.
Giorgia GaiaDepartment of Gynecology, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milan, Italy.
Andrea GianniniDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Reproductive Medicine, University of Pisa, via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Lucas HegenscheidDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg - Immanuelklinik Rüdersdorf, Berlin, Germany.
Stefano LuisiDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Reproductive Medicine, University of Pisa, via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Paolo MannellaDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Reproductive Medicine, University of Pisa, via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Liliana MereuDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHIRMED Department, G. Rodolico Hospital, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Maria Magdalena Montt-GuevaraDivision of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Clinical and Reproductive Medicine, University of Pisa, via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Isabel ÑiguezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Biomedical Research Institute of Murcia (IMIB-Arrixaca), Murcia, Spain.
Ratiba RitterHeilig-Geist Hospital Bensheim, Bensheim, Germany.
Eleonora RussoAOU Pisana: Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Maria Luisa Sanchez FerrerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Biomedical Research Institute of Murcia (IMIB-Arrixaca), Murcia, Spain.
Ayman TammaaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wilhelminen Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
Bernhard UhlEvangelisches Krankenhaus Oberhausen, Wesel, Germany.
Bea WiedemannHeilig-Geist Hospital Bensheim, Bensheim, Germany.
Maciej WilczakDepartment of Medical Education, University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Friedrich PauliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Jean DubuissonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisLateral suspension is an abdominal prosthetic surgical procedure used to correct apical prolapse. The procedure involves the placement of a T-shaped mesh on the anterior vaginal wall and on the isthmus or uterine cervix that is suspended laterally and posteriorly to the abdominal wall. Since its description in the late 90s, modifications of the technique have been described. So far, no consensus on the correct indications, safety, advantages, and disadvantages of this emerging procedure has been reached.

methodsA modified Delphi process was used to build consensus within a group of 21 international surgeons who are experts in the performance of laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS). The process was held with a first online round, where the experts expressed their level of agreement on 64 statements on indications, technical features, and other aspects of LLS. A subsequent re-discussion of statements where a threshold of agreement was not reached was held in presence.

resultsThe Delphi process allowed the identification of several aspects of LLS that represented areas of agreement by the experts. The experts agreed that LLS is a safe and effective technique to correct apical and anterior prolapse. The experts highlighted several key technical aspects of the procedure, including clinical indications and surgical steps.

conclusionsThis Delphi consensus provides valuable guidance and criteria for the use of LLS in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, based on expert opinion by large volume surgeons' experts in the performance of this innovative procedure.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyPelvic Organ ProlapseProsthesis ImplantationSurgical MeshAbdominal WallCervix UteriConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansVaginaDelphi consensusLaparoscopic lateral suspensionPelvic floor reconstructive surgeryPelvic organ prolapseSacrocolpopexy

Identifiers

PMID38877319
PMCPMC11289001

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.