ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Pelvic Organ Prolapse with an Emphasis on the Central Compartment: From Genetic Risk Factors and Biomarkers to Contemporary Sacropexy and Emerging Robotic Innovations.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is characterized by descent of the uterus or post-hysterectomy vaginal vault resulting from failure of level I pelvic support and represents a major contributor to pelvic floor dysfunction and recurrent prolapse surgery. Loss of apical support is frequently associated with anterior and posterior compartment defects, leading to vaginal bulge symptoms, pelvic pressure, urinary and bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, and reduced quality of life. This narrative review summarizes current knowledge on POP, from molecular mechanisms and emerging biomarkers to contemporary surgical management, with particular emphasis on sacrocolpopexy and robotic-assisted approaches. A literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Consensus identified peer-reviewed studies published up to February 2026. Evidence demonstrates that POP has a multifactorial and polygenic background involving extracellular matrix remodeling, connective tissue integrity, smooth muscle dysfunction, and altered level of protein expression. Several candidate biomarkers, including single-nucleotide polymorphisms, circulating proteins, metabolites, and imaging-based parameters, show potential for risk prediction and earlier diagnosis, although routine clinical implementation remains limited. Sacrocolpopexy remains the gold standard for apical prolapse repair because of superior anatomical outcomes, low recurrence, and significant quality-of-life improvement. Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy provide comparable efficacy with reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery. The objective success rate is usually over 90%. Complications are very rare and typically include mesh erosion in 2-4% of cases and the need for reoperation in 6% of cases. Our own experience shows that, for a group of surgeons, the learning curve for the laparoscopic approach reached a plateau after a total of 30 operations. Robotic platforms may facilitate complex pelvic dissection and shorten the learning curve, although higher procedural costs remain a major limitation.
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.