ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Update in fertility-sparing native-tissue procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The presacral-uterosacral hysteropexy - a novel native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- Impact on Sexual Function and Wish for Subsequent Pregnancy after Uterus-Preserving Prolapse Surgery in Premenopausal Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- National Survey on the Management of Genital Prolapse in Italy.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Hysteropexy and Anterior Vaginal Native Tissue Repair in Women with Anterior and Central Compartment Prolapse: A Long Term Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uterine-sparing prolapse surgery has been gaining back popularity with clinicians and patients. Although both prosthetic and native-tissue surgery procedures are described, the latter is progressively regaining a central role in pelvic reconstructive surgery, owing to a lack of mesh-related complications. Available native-tissue procedures have different advantages and pitfalls, as well as different evidence profiles. Most of them offer anatomical and subjective outcomes comparable with those of hysterectomy-based procedures. Moreover, native-tissue procedures in young women desiring childbearing allow to avoid synthetic material implantation, which may lead to potentially serious complications during pregnancy. As a consequence, we do think that offering a reconstructive native-tissue procedure for uterine preservation (with the exception of the Manchester procedure) is the safest option in women wishing for pregnancy. Sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy and high uterosacral ligament hysteropexy may be considered first-line options in consideration of the higher level of evidence and lack of adverse obstetrical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.