ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Mesh Placement Anterior Versus Posterior to the Cervix Uteri in Laparoscopic Pectopexy with Uterine Preservation.
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
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
introduction and hypothesisTo compare the outcomes of laparoscopic pectopexy (LP) with uterine preservation between mesh placement anterior to the cervix uteri and mesh placement posterior to the cervix uteri.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of 72 women who underwent LP for stage III or IV apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) was conducted: 48 with mesh placement anterior to the cervix (group I) and 24 with mesh placement posterior to the cervix (group II). The primary outcome was the rate of postoperative recurrences in both groups. The secondary outcome was the change in quality of life, as evaluated by comparing the results of the prolapse quality of life (P-QOL) questionnaire completed pre- and postoperatively.
resultsThe mean age (58.27 ± 9.85 vs 59.04 ± 9.93 years; p = 0698) and mean follow-up period (24.85 ± 5.12 vs 23.17 ± 6.93 months; p = 0.323) were similar between the groups. Demographic characteristics and operative time (73.23 ± 14.10 vs 77.08 ± 29.52 min, p = 0.407) were similar between the groups. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were noted in any of the groups. Recurrence (12.5% vs 8.3%, p = 0.710) and reoperation rates (4.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.597) did not differ significantly between the groups. When the pre- and postoperative changes in the P-QOL questionnaire scores were compared between the two groups, the positive change in POP symptoms, sleep/energy, severity of symptoms and total scale score was more significant in group I. Other scale scores were similar between the two groups. In regression analysis, preoperative Ba, D, Ap and Bp points were found to be significant predictors. An increase in Ba and Ap values increased the likelihood of posterior mesh placement, while an increase in D and Bp values increased the likelihood of anterior mesh placement.
conclusionsIn laparoscopic pectopexy, placing the mesh anterior or posterior to the cervix has similar results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41091153What 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.