ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Obliterative Repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Retrospective Cohort Comparing Three Techniques.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisObliterative surgery is a well-established treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women who no longer desire vaginal intercourse. Comparative data between techniques remain limited; this study evaluated outcomes of three obliterative procedures in a tertiary centre.
methodsThis retrospective cohort included all women undergoing obliterative POP surgery between 2012 and 2024. Procedures were colpocleisis (vault), colpocleisis with vaginal hysterectomy, and Le Fort colpocleisis. Primary outcomes were objective cure (maintenance of vaginal closure without prolapse beyond the hymen), and subjective cure (absence of bulge symptoms). Secondary outcomes included length of hospitalization, recurrence, postoperative complications, and de novo or worsening urgency urinary incontinence. Group comparisons used ANOVA and chi-square tests (p < 0.05).
resultsA total of 144 women were analysed (median age 76 years); 98% presented with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage III-IV. Colpocleisis (vault) was performed in 35%, colpocleisis with hysterectomy in 42%, and Le Fort in 23%. Objective cure rates were 92%, 89%, and 85% (p = 0.58), while subjective cure was achieved in 94%, 92%, and 91% (p = 0.70). Hospitalization was longer after colpocleisis with hysterectomy (p = 0.0016). Recurrence (6-12%, p = 0.61) and postoperative complications (0-7%, p = 0.38) were similarly low across groups.
conclusionsAll three obliterative techniques demonstrated excellent anatomical and symptomatic success with minimal morbidity. Differences were limited to length of hospitalization. These findings reinforce obliterative surgery as a simple, safe, and durable option for women with advanced POP who do not wish to preserve vaginal sexual function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42507148What 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.