ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison of efficacy and safety between native tissue repair and transvaginal mesh for uterine prolapse: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
Background: The surgical treatment for patients with uterine prolapse usually adopts two methods: native tissue repair (NTR) and transvaginal mesh (TVM). However, there is still inconsistent conclusion regarding the efficacy and safety of these two methods at present. Objective: The aim is to compare the efficacy and safety of native tissue repair and transvaginal mesh in the treatment of symptomatic uterine prolapse. Methods: This study included 86 patients who were admitted to the hospital due to uterine prolapse from January 2022 to December 2024. According to the type of surgery they received, the patients were divided into two groups: the NTR group ( Results: The average operation time of the NTR group was 177.3 ± 30.51 min, while the operation time of the TVM group was shorter, at 148.8 ± 21.12 min ( Conclusion: Whether it is native tissue repair or vaginal mesh, both can improve the symptoms and overall health conditions of women with uterine prolapse. Vaginal mesh has a significant advantage in reducing the recurrence rate, but it also comes with a higher risk of mesh-related complications. Native tissue repair has advantages in terms of safety and complication rate, but its recurrence risk is relatively higher. Therefore, when choosing a specific surgical plan, it is necessary to comprehensively assess the individual circumstances of each patient and weigh the surgical effect against safety.
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.