ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2025
Laparoscopic mesh sacr ocolpopexy versus lateral vaginal vault suspension in prevention of post hysterectomy vault prolapse: a randomized trial.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-port laparoscopic lateral suspension with total versus subtotal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective comparative study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Fibrin sealant-enhanced single-port LLS with cervical preservation and "homemade" mesh: an innovative surgical technique for pelvic organ prolapse.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS) for preventing post hysterectomy vault prolapse.
methodsThis randomized trial included 40 women who were scheduled for a hysterectomy. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups in a 1:1 ratio: group I underwent LSC immediately after hysterectomy and group II (n=20) underwent LLS immediately after hysterectomy.
resultsPostoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurements (anterior vaginal points anterior vaginal wall points A and posterior vaginal wall points B, vaginal apex point C, and posterior vaginal points anterior prolapse and posterior prolapse) were significantly better in the LSC group, with a lower rate of postoperative vault prolapse beyond the introitus (P=0.047). Both groups showed similar estimated blood loss, urinary tract infection, wound infection, and urinary retention rates. However, LSC was associated with significantly higher postoperative pain scores at 24 hours and 48 hours and a longer hospital stay (P<0.05).
conclusionAlthough LSC demonstrated more favorable anatomical outcomes and a lower incidence of postoperative vault prolapse beyond the introitus than LLS, these findings should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size. Both procedures showed comparable safety profiles, although the LSC was associated with greater postoperative pain and longer hospitalization times. Given the study's exploratory design, small cohort, and short follow-up period, further large-scale multicenter studies are needed to confirm these preliminary observations and to better inform clinical practice regarding the optimal surgical approach for preventing post hysterectomy vault 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.