ArticleInternational journal of women's health2026
Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Folding Suture for Cesarean Scar Defect and Its Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes: A Retrospective Study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Cesarean scar defect (CSD) is characterized by localized thinning of the myometrium due to defective healing of a previous cesarean section incision. It is frequently associated with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and secondary infertility, and high-quality evidence regarding its surgical management is lacking. As a novel reconstructive technique, the efficacy of laparoscopic CSD folding suture in alleviating AUB and improving fertility outcomes remains to be validated. Purpose: In the absence of high-quality evidence, this study aimed to provide preliminary evidence on the efficacy of laparoscopic folding suture in relieving AUB-related symptoms (assessed by menstrual duration) and optimizing reproductive outcomes, and to assess its feasibility and safety. Patients and Methods: This single-centre, retrospective case series included patients who underwent laparoscopic folding suture for CSD at Shandong Provincial Maternal and Child Health Hospital between October 2021 and March 2025. A total of 36 patients were assessed for eligibility; 10 were excluded for the following reasons: lost to follow-up within 3 months postoperatively (n = 3), prior hysteroscopic repair of CSD (n = 2), concurrent endometrial polyps (n = 3), and confirmed tubal factor infertility (n = 2). The remaining 26 women were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was change in menstrual duration before and after surgery; secondary endpoints comprised subsequent pregnancy outcomes, change in residual myometrial thickness (RMT), and perioperative adverse events. Results: Menstrual duration was shortened in 96.2% of patients (25/26), with the median menstrual duration significantly decreasing from 14.5 days (IQR 10.0-15.0) preoperatively to 7.0 days (IQR 6.0-9.0) postoperatively (P < 0.001). Sixteen (61.5%) were actively trying to conceive; during follow-up, 12 of these individuals (75%) achieved pregnancy. Intraoperative blood loss was 30 mL (IQR 20-50). The RMT increased significantly from 1.3 mm (IQR 1.0-1.7) preoperatively to 6.5 mm (IQR 5.0-7.0) postoperatively (median increase 5.2 mm; P < 0.001). Conclusion: This single-centre retrospective case series suggests that laparoscopic folding suture is a safe and feasible technique for CSD repair, associated with significant improvement in menstrual symptoms and favorable pregnancy outcomes. However, due to the study design, these preliminary findings warrant confirmation in larger, prospective controlled trials.
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.