ArticleInternational journal of women's health2026
Mid-Term Outcomes of Posterior Pelvic Reconstruction Combined with Lateral Abdominal Wall Suspension versus Sacrocolpopexy for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Comparative 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.
- Interpreting Mid-Term LAWS versus Sacrocolpopexy Outcomes in Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse [Letter].International journal of women's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare mid-term efficacy, safety, and functional outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) versus laparoscopic lateral abdominal wall suspension (LAWS), both combined with standardized posterior repair, for advanced multi-compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of 132 patients with POP-Q stage ≥III apical defects and concomitant anterior/posterior prolapse (2019-2021). Seventy underwent LSC + posterior repair (control), 62 underwent LAWS + posterior repair (observation). Perioperative outcomes, anatomical restoration (POP-Q), patient-reported outcomes (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12), and 3-year complications were compared. Results: LAWS showed shorter operative time (136.08±17.48 vs 174.81±27.36 min, Conclusion: Both LSC and LAWS with posterior repair are effective for advanced POP. LAWS offers advantages in operative safety, recovery, and lower risk of defecatory dysfunction, positioning it as a viable alternative. Treatment choice should be individualized based on patient anatomy and surgeon expertise.
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.