ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Revisiting Urological Injury Risks in Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: A Rare-Events Network Meta-Analysis with Sensitivity Analyses.
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 hypothesisThe surgical approach to hysterectomy influences the risk of urological injuries, but the optimal technique for minimizing this risk remains unclear. Our objective was to evaluate, through a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the risk of intraoperative bladder and ureteral injuries among different hysterectomy techniques.
methodsWe systematically searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and European Clinical Trials Register (inception to 15 January 2025) for RCTs. NMA and pairwise meta-analyses were performed using penalized logistic regression and Bayesian models, accounting for rare events.
resultsOut of 170 screened records, 63 RCTs involving 7470 women were included. Sixty-nine bladder injuries (9.2 out of 1000), 23 ureteral injuries (3.1 out of 1000), and 96 combined injuries (12.9 out of 1000) were reported. Compared with abdominal hysterectomy (AH), total laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) showed a significantly higher risk of ureteral injury (odds ratio [OR] 7.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.46-24.37), as did LH/laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH; OR 7.73; 95% CI 2.42-24.7). LH and LH/LAVH also carried a higher risk of any urological injury than AH (OR 2.66 and 2.34 respectively). Estimated injury rates per 1000 were 9.5 (ureteral) and 18.1 (combined) for LH, versus 0.5 and 7.5 for AH. Meta-regression showed that the elevated risk with LH persisted over time.
conclusionsLaparoscopic hysterectomy and LH/LAVH are associated with a higher risk of ureteral/bladder injuries than AH. This increased risk has not declined over time, suggesting that the standardization and broader adoption of LH have not mitigated urological complications.
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.