ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Multicentric data analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic Shull's repair of pelvic floor defects.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Laparoscopic Shull Technique for Uterine Prolapse and Risk of Recurrences: A Retrospective Comparison with Vaginal Hysterectomy.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Robotic sacrocolpopexy: a game worth playing? A critical literature analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Cystopexy raises the post-operative complication rate during laparoscopic hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional analysis based on GBD data: trends in the global, regional, and national burden of pelvic organ prolapse from 1990 to 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Editorial: Current advances in the understanding and management of pelvic organ prolapse.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pelvic organs prolapse remains a significant health concern affecting millions of women worldwide. The use of native tissues to suspend the apex has acquired relevance in urogynecologic surgery. One of the most commonly used procedures performed without mesh is the technique described by Shull, consisting of suturing the vaginal apex to the uterosacral ligaments. The objective of the study is to evaluate the learning curve of laparoscopic Shull's repair for the correction of pelvic floor defects, including the surgery time and surgical outcomes. Materials and methods: This is a retrospective study conducted at the Policlinico G. Martino, University of Messina, Messina, Italy, and Policlinico Vanvitelli, Vanvitelli University, Naples, Italy. All patients affected by grade I-IV POP, consisting of apical prolapse with or without cystocele, and who underwent laparoscopic Shull's technique for prolapse correction were enrolled. The endpoints to estimate the learning curve for the procedure were the percentage of laparoscopic procedures completed, operative time, and the early complication rate. Results: A total of 31 laparoscopic Shull repairs were collected for the study. To evaluate the learning curve of the technique, we divided the 31 cases into three different groups: Procedures 0-10; 11-20; 21-31. The parameter for evaluating technique learning was the operative time. Group 21-31 demonstrated an operative time of 97 min (SD 20), compared with 121 min (SD 23) in group 0-10 and 120 min (SD 13) in group 11-20. A comparison of these means through ANOVA showed a Conclusions: The rate of surgical improvement in terms of time became effective after an average of 20 procedures. However, the improvement seems to be effective case by case for surgeons skilled in basic endoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.