ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
A modified minimally invasive technique for pelvic organ prolapse: transvaginal extraperitoneal single-port lateral suspension.
Article in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This retrospective comparative cohort study aimed to evaluate an improved transvaginal extraperitoneal single-port lateral suspension procedure for the treatment of anterior compartment prolapse and paravaginal defects while preserving the advantages of minimally invasive surgery and maintaining abdominal wall esthetics. Methods: A retrospective comparative cohort study was performed on 43 cases treated in our hospital. Twelve patients who underwent the improved lateral suspension procedure were included in the improved group, whereas 31 patients who underwent traditional lateral suspension served as the control group. Patients in each group underwent their respective surgical procedures. Results: No patient in either group experienced accidental vascular injury or hemorrhage. In the improved group, two procedures were unsuccessful due to inadvertent peritoneal puncture and entry into the abdominal cavity, and these peritoneal defects were repaired using transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES). No other intraoperative or postoperative complications were observed. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding operative time, length of hospital stay, or estimated blood loss. Both groups showed significant postoperative improvements in POP-Q, PFDI-20, and PFIQ-7 scores. Conclusion: Based on these preliminary results, this modified procedure appears to be feasible, safe, and effective for gynecologists experienced in vNOTES and pelvic organ prolapse surgery. However, its efficacy and safety require further validation through larger prospective studies with longer follow-up periods.
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.