ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative efficacy of bilateral mesh sacrospinous ligament suspension versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in patients with metroptosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Comparison of the Postoperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy and Transvaginal Surgery Using ORIHIMEGynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assesses the efficacy of bilateral mesh sacrospinous ligament suspension (MSSLS) compared to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) in patients with uterine prolapse. Ninety-eight patients with uterine prolapse were evaluated at our hospital from January 2021 to January 2023. Patients were equally divided into two groups: the study group (undergoing MSSLS) and the control group (undergoing LSC) using a random number table. Various parameters including operation time, bleeding volume, indwelling catheter time, exhaust time, hospital stay, pelvic organ prolapse stage, postoperative recurrence rate, pain severity, quality of life, pelvic floor function, impact on sexual life, complications, and recurrence rate were recorded. The study group showed significant reductions in operation time, bleeding volume, indwelling catheter time, exhaust time, and hospital stay compared to the control group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in Aa, Ba, Ap, Bp, and C between the two groups before surgery (P > 0.05), but six months postoperatively, these indexes were significantly lower in the study group (P < 0.05). Pain severity did not differ significantly between the two groups before surgery (P > 0.05), but was significantly lower in the study group six months postoperatively (P < 0.05). Quality of life, pelvic floor function, and sexual life quality did not significantly differ before surgery, at 6 months, and at 12 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). All patients were followed up for 12-14 months, with an average follow-up time of (13.02 ± 1.36) months. The incidence of complications was significantly lower in the study group (P < 0.05), but there were no recurrences in either group, thus the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). MSSLS emerges as a safe and efficacious treatment for uterine prolapse, notably reducing both complications and recurrence rates, rendering it suitable for broad clinical application.
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.