Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42776189›Full record

ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026

Surgical Strategies for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Tran T T Nguyen, Pouria Aryan, Mahshid Taheri, Ben Willem Mol, Marie Fidela R Paraiso, Jennifer Phung, Nadia Willison, Derek Abbott, Fariba Behnia-Willison

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tran T T NguyenDiscipline of Biomedical Engineering, School of EME, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. tran.nguyen@adelaide.edu.au.
Pouria AryanDiscipline of Biomedical Engineering, School of EME, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Mahshid TaheriFBW Gynaecology Plus, Ashford, South Australia, Australia.
Ben Willem MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Marie Fidela R ParaisoCenter for Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Jennifer PhungEisenhower Health, Rancho Mirage, CA, USA.
Nadia WillisonDiscipline of Biomedical Engineering, School of EME, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Derek AbbottDiscipline of Biomedical Engineering, School of EME, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Fariba Behnia-WillisonDiscipline of Biomedical Engineering, School of EME, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council FL240100217
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisComparative effectiveness of surgical approaches to apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) remains uncertain, particularly regarding recurrence, reoperation and mesh-related outcomes over the available follow-up. The objective was to compare the effectiveness and safety of surgical treatments for primary apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

methodsComprehensive searches were conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, WHO, and ICTRP databases from inception to 30 June 2025. English-language RCTs comparing surgical interventions for apical POP, alone or with other compartment repairs, were included if they reported anatomical recurrence after ≥ 1-year follow-up. Studies on non-surgical interventions were excluded. The primary outcome was anatomical recurrence; secondary outcomes included subjective recurrence, reoperation rates and mesh complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and study integrity was evaluated with the Trustworthiness in Randomised Controlled Trials checklist. A random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA; NMAstudio 2.0) was performed, grouping interventions by clinical similarity. Native tissue repair (NTR) served as the reference.

resultsFifty-eight RCTs (6,846 participants) were included. Vaginal, abdominal and laparoscopic mesh repairs significantly reduced anatomical recurrence versus NTR (relative risk 0.59-0.66). Vaginal mesh and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with posterior plication lowered subjective recurrence (relative risk 0.22-0.51). Abdominal sacrocolpopexy was associated with fewer recurrence-related reoperations (relative risk 0.40), whereas vaginal mesh had higher mesh-related reoperations (relative risk 5.19).

conclusionsMesh-augmented vaginal, laparoscopic and abdominal repairs reduce prolapse recurrence compared with NTR but carry increased mesh-related risks. Sacrocolpopexy was associated with favourable anatomical durability for apical POP.

Indexed as

Apical prolapseNative tissue repairNetwork meta-analysisPelvic organ prolapse surgerySacrocolpopexyTransvaginal mesh

Identifiers

PMID42776189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.