ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
A Comparative Evaluation of Double Versus Loop Suture Techniques in Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Over Two Years.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisSacrospinous ligament fixation (SSF) is a widely accepted native tissue technique for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP), especially following the decline in mesh-based procedures. However, the optimal suture technique remains under debate.
objectivesTo compare the clinical outcomes of double versus loop suture techniques in SSF, with a focus on operative efficiency, complications, recurrence, and reoperation rates over a 24-month follow-up. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 195 patients with stage 3 or 4 POP who underwent SSF with nonabsorbable polypropylene suture between January 2020 and January 2023 in a tertiary-care academic hospital specializing in urogynecologic surgery. Group 1 (n = 115) underwent classical double suture SSF, while group 2 (n = 80) received the loop suture technique. Demographic characteristics, operative times, perioperative complications, recurrence, and reoperation rates were recorded and compared between the groups.
main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were total operative time. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications such as gluteal pain, recurrence rate, and reoperation rate.
resultsBoth groups were similar in age, BMI, and baseline POP stage. The loop suture group had significantly shorter total operative time (154.04 ± 41.83 vs. 112.85 ± 37.34 min, p < 0.001) and SSF-specific surgical time (59.09 ± 22.97 vs. 37.34 ± 10.91 min, p < 0.001). Although recurrence rates were similar (24.3% in the double suture group vs. 18.7% in the loop suture group, p = 0.452), reoperation was significantly less frequent in the loop group (5% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.035). Gluteal pain occurred more often in the double suture group, although these differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionThe loop suture technique appears to be a safe and efficient alternative to the classical double suture method for SSF, offering reduced operative time and lower reoperation rates without compromising effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41051575What 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.