Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39404818›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2024

Sacrocolpopexy: The Way I Do It.

Usama Shahid, Zhouran Chen, Christopher Maher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. A clinically and technologically practicable navigation system for robotic sacrocolpopexy.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors.

Usama ShahidRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. drusamashahid@gmail.com.
Zhouran ChenSt George Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Christopher MaherRoyal Brisbane and Women's and Wesley Hospitals, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisSacrocolpopexy (SCP) is an established surgical procedure for apical vaginal vault prolapse. There remains significant variation amongst surgeons in both the surgical steps and concomitant surgeries utilised when undertaking an SCP.

methodsThis review article is aimed at summarising the evidence and providing a detailed update of SCP in modern practice, reviewing contemporary evidence behind its indications, efficacy, outcomes, surgical steps, and complications.

resultsSacrocolpopexy remains the gold standard for post-hysterectomy apical prolapse based on good long-term outcomes, patient satisfaction and low complication rates. SCP with concomitant total hysterectomy is not recommended owing to high rates of mesh exposure. The laparoscopic approach remains the preferred option in terms of low morbidity, quicker recovery and lower cost than alternative access options. For optimal outcomes an SCP should be performed with monofilament mesh, using absorbable sutures and with a paravaginal repair for cystocele.

conclusionsAlthough SCP has become increasingly utilised for apical prolapse, its established efficacy regarding anatomical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and complications is in the context of post-hysterectomy prolapse. SCP with concomitant total hysterectomy has higher rates of mesh exposure. The efficacy and safety of SCP with sub-total hysterectomy or hysteropexy have not been clearly established and require further assessment through well-designed, rigorous randomised controlled trials.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresPelvic Organ ProlapseSurgical MeshFemaleHumansHysterectomyLaparoscopyPatient SatisfactionPostoperative ComplicationsSacrumTreatment OutcomeVaginaApicalExposureMeshProlapseSacrocolpopexyVault

Identifiers

PMID39404818
PMCPMC11638296

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.