Trial reportArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Long-term results of apical prolapse correction by unilateral pectineal suspension: A clinical trial.
Trial report in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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
introductionUnilateral pectineal suspension (UPS) is a novel method for mesh-free apical prolapse correction. Short-term follow-up results 6 months after isolated UPS have been very encouraging, resulting in excellent apex stability and high patient satisfaction in a cohort of 47 patients with mostly advanced prolapse.
methodsIn order to assess the long-term outcome after isolated UPS, all 47 patients from the original patient cohort treated with isolated UPS were invited for a scheduled follow-up examination after a minimum follow-up period of two years to determine whether the result of the primary surgery remained stable. We analyzed the outcome with regard to apex stability, residual defects, and procedure-related morbidity.
resultsUPS as a stand-alone procedure showed high stability at the apex. Throughout the two-year follow-up period, only two patients (4.3%) required secondary surgery for apical recurrence. Increasing age correlated significantly with apical recurrence. Six patients became symptomatic in the anterior and/or the posterior compartment while the apex remained stable (13.0%). With increasing age, the probability of secondary surgery also appeared to rise, however, this was not statistically significant. There was no method-related morbidity.
conclusionUPS is a valuable concept for mesh-free apical prolapse correction. Two-year follow-up after isolated UPS shows stable results at the apex. A combined approach may be valuable to reduce the potential necessity of secondary surgery in the anterior / posterior compartment.
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.