Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39136730›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

The standardized procedure, technical key points and latest progress of laparoscopic lateral suspension surgery.

Tengge Yu, Li Liu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 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

2 authors.

Tengge YuDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Xiamen Hospital of Sichuan University, Xiamen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-8970-1644
Li LiuDepartment of Emergency, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jiamusi University, Jiamusi, Heilongjiang, China. 281745802@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition that can affect up to 30% of women over the age of 50. For a long time, open abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) have been considered the gold standard in the treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Promontory dissection may expose patients to potential life-threatening intraoperative vascular injuries, as well as damage to sacral roots or the hypogastric nerve. Laparoscopic lateral suspension could be considered as an alternative to LSCP in the treatment of POP due to its favorable objective and subjective outcomes. The aim of this article is to demonstrate a step-by-step approach to laparoscopic lateral suspension for POP with the goal of standardizing this procedure. Technical key points and the latest progress are summarized to provide a reference for subsequent gynecological and urological surgeons.

methodAccording to our surgical experience of our hospital, demonstrate a step-by-step approach and highlight technical key points for laparoscopic lateral suspension for POP with the aim of standardizing this procedure.

conclusionLLS with mesh is a safe alternative to laparoscopic sacropexy and is very well suited for uterine-preserving POP surgery. Nevertheless, this novel procedure lacks standardization. Standardization of procedures is necessary to reduce failure rates, generate impactful research data, and enhance patient safety. This article contributes to the standardization of this procedure, and we believe our article will be useful in assisting future gynecological and urological surgeons in performing this procedure.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyPelvic Organ ProlapseFemaleHumansSurgical MeshLaparoscopicLateral suspensionPelvic organ prolapse

Identifiers

PMID39136730

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.