ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
The Pull-Out Strength of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in a Cadaver Model.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to determine the biomechanical strength of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) by evaluating their pull-out forces.
methodsThis study was conducted during a cadaver workshop in Taiwan, which allowed the participants to perform multiple vaginal and abdominal procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. The study focused on biochemical strength assessment of LSH and SSLF. Six fresh cadavers underwent LSH or SSLF using various anchoring techniques. LSH procedures used sutures and tackers to fixate to the sacral promontory or uterus, whereas SSLF was performed using the tackers only. A digital crane scale was used to measure pull-out strength for each procedure. Results recorded the maximum load at failure.
resultsThe SSLF procedure provided stronger apical support than LSH, with pull-out forces ranging from 25.3 to 52.5 N compared with LSH promontory fixation, which ranged from 12.6 to 13.7 N. Tackers used in SSLF showed consistent load bearing across all samples (44-47 N), whereas LSH grip strength varied with stitch numbers and anatomical positioning on the sacral promontory, with an average of 12.6 N. Vaginal load values are relatively consistent, with an average of 42.6 N across all cadavers. The instructor's initial attempt consistently demonstrated the highest strength, emphasizing the impact of the technique.
conclusionsThe SSLF procedure provided superior apical support to LSH, suggesting that it might be preferable for managing POP. Variations in ligament condition affected outcomes, but SSLF provided more reliable support. A need for further research in live subjects is needed to verify the optimal anchoring approach in POP repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41042315What 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.