SynthesisBMC women's health2025
Comparison of concomitant hysterectomy and uterine preservation for pelvic floor reconstruction using transvaginal mesh in the treatment of POP: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to summarize the evidence available in the published literature on concomitant hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to clarify whether uterine removal should be performed during pelvic floor reconstructive surgery using transvaginal mesh (TVM).
methodsThe literature search strategy was specifically designed to identify articles investigating the comparison of concomitant hysterectomy and uterine preservation in pelvic floor reconstruction using TVM. The database search spanned from their inception until March 2024. The literature selection and data collection processes were guided by predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The included studies were independently evaluated by two reviewers, and a meta-analysis was conducted utilizing RevMan 5.4.
resultsEleven retrospective studies involving 1341 patients were selected for meta-analysis. The results showed no statistically significant differences in the objective cure rate or the risk of recurrence between concomitant hysterectomy and uterine preservation. Compared to uterine preservation, concomitant hysterectomy surgery was associated with extended operative duration (MD 31.59, 95% CI 19.49 - 43.68, p < 0.00001), longer hospital stay (MD 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 - 1.92, p < 0.0001), increased intraoperative blood loss (MD 62.52, 95% CI 30.18 - 94.86, p = 0.0002), reduced PISQ-12 scores (MD -5.99, 95% CI -9.70 to -2.28, p = 0.002), decreased postoperative total vaginal length (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.18, p = 0.007), and higher risk of mesh exposure (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.18-3.23, p = 0.009).
conclusionsUterine sparing surgery using TVM compared to concomitant hysterectomy surgery using TVM showed equally effective in the treatment of POP at short and medium term follow-up. But uterine preservation could reduce intraoperative blood loss, operative duration, and duration of hospitalization. In addition, uterine sparing surgery is beneficial for decreasing the risk of mesh exposure, increasing the vaginal length and improving sexual satisfaction.
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.