ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy Versus vNOTES Lateral Suspension for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective 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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- vNOTES Versus Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Single-Center, Single-Surgeon Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Response to the Comment on "Comparative Outcomes of Single-Port Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension Versus Multiport Sacrohysteropexy in Uterine-Preserving Apical Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study".International urogynecology journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo compare perioperative outcomes and early anatomical results of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vNOTES lateral suspension in women undergoing uterus-preserving surgery for apical pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsThis prospective study included 100 women with symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse who preferred uterine preservation between June 2022 and December 2024. Fifty patients underwent laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and 50 underwent vNOTES lateral suspension. Demographic characteristics, perioperative outcomes, postoperative pain scores, and anatomical results based on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measurements were evaluated. Surgical success, recurrence, and postoperative complications were also assessed.
resultsOperative time was longer in the laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy group than in the vNOTES group (102.4 ± 18.6 vs 78.6 ± 15.2 min, p < 0.001). Postoperative hemoglobin decrease was greater in the laparoscopic group (1.28 ± 0.64 vs 0.82 ± 0.51 g/dL, p = 0.002). Pain scores at 6 and 24 h were lower in the vNOTES group (p < 0.001). Hospital stay was also shorter in the vNOTES group (1.6 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 0.8 days, p < 0.001). Both techniques significantly improved POP-Q measurements, with comparable anatomical outcomes. Apical success rates were 96% and 94%, respectively.
conclusionsBoth techniques are effective uterus-preserving options for apical pelvic organ prolapse. Although anatomical outcomes were similar, vNOTES lateral suspension showed advantages in operative time, postoperative pain, and hospital stay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42412130What 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.