ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Balanced Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in Uterine Prolapse: A Preliminary Retrospective Comparative Study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThis study aimed to evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy of balanced sacrospinous ligament fixation (BSSF) in comparison with laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and modified sacrospinous fixation (MSSF) in patients with uterine prolapse.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients diagnosed with stage II or higher uterine prolapse who underwent either BSSF, MSSF, and LSH at a tertiary teaching hospital during the period spanning June 2021 to June 2024. The primary outcome was 1-year subjective recurrence rate. The secondary outcomes were anatomic recurrence, estimated blood loss, operative time, blood transfusion, injuries, hospital stays, catheter indwelling days, postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification scores, and quality of life assessment. Multivariable regression adjusted for age, menopausal status, parity, BMI, surgical approach, and baseline POP-Q stage.
resultsA total of 152 patients were included (LSH 51, MSSF 52, BSSF 49), with comparable baseline characteristics. The 1-year subjective recurrence rate was significantly lower in the BSSF (2.0%) and LSH (2.0%) groups than in the MSSF group (13.5%) (p = 0.023). Anatomical recurrence showed a similar pattern (BSSF 4.1%, LSH 7.8%, MSSF 19.2%; p = 0.034). Operative time was shorter for BSSF (median 75 min) and MSSF (median 57 min) than LSH (median 140 min, p < 0.05), with no differences in blood loss or hospital stay. At 3-12 months postoperatively, BSSF demonstrated better anterior compartment support than MSSF (p < 0.05), comparable to LSH.
conclusionsBSSF seems to be a safe and effective uterine-sparing option for apical prolapse, further randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42268411What 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.