ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2025
Laparoscopic pectopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP): how, why, when: a narrative review of the literature.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2025. 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.
- Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life After Laparoscopic Pectopexy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common gynaecological condition that can have an adverse impact on women's quality of life. Apical prolapse refers to the descending of the vaginal apex, uterus or cervix. Nowadays, laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) is the gold standard surgical method for the treatment of apical prolapse. However, defecation and urinary problems are often detected in patients who underwent LS. Laparoscopic pectopexy (LP) is a newer procedure for apical prolapse correction that uses the iliopectineal ligaments as fixation point for the surgical mesh. Objectives: To review the current evidence of the effectiveness and safety of LP and compare outcomes with other commonly used techniques for apical prolapse treatment. Methods: A literature search was carried out in MEDLINE, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. The search was restricted to humans, female patients and currently used surgical procedures. Main Outcome Measures: The current recommendations from leading global scientific associations and prevailing trends in accepted clinical protocols. Results: LP was found to have shorter learning curve and operating times, better improvement in quality of life scores including sexual function and low complication rates. Conclusions: LP appears to be a viable alternative to LS. However, further prospective, comparative studies are necessary to evaluate its long-term effectiveness and morbidity. What is New?: This review summarises the evidence and current role of LP in the treatment of POP.
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.