ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Laparoscopic Shull Technique for Uterine Prolapse and Risk of Recurrences: A Retrospective Comparison with Vaginal Hysterectomy.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Hysterectomy Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Current Perspectives and Decision-Making Considerations for Surgical Treatment.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Incidental findings of ectopic adrenal cortical tissue in the umbilical hernia sac and uterine wall: report of two cases in adult females.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to compare the vaginal and laparoscopic approaches with natural tissue vaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of recurrence rate and complete remission rate (CRR) of symptoms. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed women who underwent hysterectomy for uterine prolapse at two Italian hospitals between October 2021 and March 2023. Group A included 89 patients who received vaginal hysterectomy and colposuspension (VCH), whereas group B included 58 patients who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy followed by laparoscopic colposuspension sec Shull (LPSS).
resultsThe study included 147 patients with comparable baseline characteristics regarding menopausal age and body mass index. Concerning preoperative data, it is worth mentioning that group A had a higher proportion of patients with more than two previous deliveries and, overall, more severe prolapse stages. Concerning postoperative results, the patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had longer operation times than group A. Moreover, group B had a higher recurrence rate after surgery (5.6% vs 13%, p = 0.057). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated a lower rate of prolapse-free patients over time in group B. Cox regression showed a higher hazard ratio for recurrence in the LCSS group than in the VCH group. Complete remission rates for urinary symptoms varied, with group B showing higher CRR for stress incontinence (33% vs 71%, p < 0.001).
conclusionBoth VCH and LCSS are effective for POP treatment, with VCH showing better outcomes in terms of symptom remission and shorter operation times. At the same time, LCSS had better CRR for stress incontinence but a higher recurrence rate. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine the best surgical approach for POP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39652191What 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.