ArticleCurrent medical science2025
Physiological Reconstruction for Moderate-Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Multicenter Retrospective Self-Controlled Study.
Article in Current medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Pelvic floor reconstruction-An interdisciplinary overview].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Holistic Pelvic Floor: Pelvic Floor Stress Dysfunction Diseases.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Viewing the Pelvic Floor Through a Philosophical Lens: Constructing a Novel Theoretical System for Pelvic Floor Stress Dysfunction Disorders.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Long-term clinical outcomes of ischial spine fascia fixation compared with sacrospinous ligament fixation: a prospective cohort study over 10 years.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Is occult stress urinary incontinence truly "occult"?Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2026Review
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
Abstract
objectiveThis is a self-controlled multicenter retrospective study based on the clinical efficacy and complications of physiological reconstruction in the treatment of moderate and severe pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsFrom December 2014 to August 2021, 517 women were included and registered for physiological reconstruction at four Chinese urogynecology institutions. We enrolled 364 women with POP-Q stage ≥ 3. The degree of POP was quantified via a POP-Q system. The surgical purpose of physiological reconstruction is to repair the vagina, levator ani muscle, perineum, and urogenital hiatus and adopt a repair method in accordance with the axial direction of physiology. All 330 evaluable participants were followed for 2 years. The evaluation indices included the PFDI-20, PGI-I, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12, PGI-I, and PGI-S. All complications were coded according to the category-time-site system proposed by the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) and International Continence Society (ICS).
resultsCompared with the preoperative POP-Q scores, statistically significant improvements were observed at the 6-month, 1-year and 2-year time points (P < 0.001). Statistically significant improvements in quality of life were observed across all time points.
conclusionsPhysiologic reconstructive surgical techniques combined with modified anterior pelvic floor mesh implantation could help restore the physiologic axis and vaginal shape, which may be the most important factors in maintaining the functional position of pelvic floor organs and is the most effective method for repairing the pelvic fascia tendon arch. This surgical method is safe, feasible, and effective in patients with severe prolapse.
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.