ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Comparison of Postoperative Functional Recovery and Anatomical Restoration in Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Undergoing Three Types of Apical Suspension Techniques: A Retrospective 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisSurgery is a key treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study was aimed at comparing the effects of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF), laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS), and extraperitoneal high uterosacral ligament suspension (EHUS) on anatomical restoration and functional recovery in patients with POP.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 188 patients with POP who underwent SSLF, LLS, or EHUS between 2020 and 2023. Baseline characteristics, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q), lower urinary tract symptoms, and questionnaire scores were collected preoperatively, and at 1 and 12 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was surgical success; secondary outcomes included POP-Q scores and patient-reported symptom improvement.
resultsPreoperative data were comparable among the three groups (p > 0.05). The surgical success rates were 84.93% (62 out of 73) for SSLF, 85.00% (34 out of 40) for LLS, and 77.78% (35 out of 45) for EHUS, with no significant difference. Anatomical success rates were 95.89% for SSLF, 95.00% for LLS, and 84.44% for EHUS. SSLF demonstrated a significantly higher anatomical success rate than EHUS (p = 0.012). Subjective cure rates were 84.93%, 90.00%, and 84.00%, and satisfaction rates were 94.52%, 95.0%, and 93.33% for SSLF, LLS, and EHUS groups respectively. All groups showed significant postoperative improvements in POP-Q and questionnaire scores. The SSLF group exhibited a significantly greater reduction in questionnaire scores from baseline to 12 months than the EHUS group (p < 0.05).
conclusionAt 12 months postoperatively, no single technique (SSLF, LLS, or EHUS) demonstrated overall superiority in surgical success. SSLF was associated with superior anatomical outcomes and greater symptom improvement than EHUS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42776188What 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.