SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2021
Abdominal and vaginal pelvic support with concomitant hysterectomy for uterovaginal pelvic prolapse: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Effectiveness of G-MeshJournal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWhile approximately 225,000 pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgeries are performed annually in the US, there is no consensus on the optimal route for pelvic support for the initial treatment of uterovaginal prolapse (UVP). Our objective is to compare the outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) to vaginal pelvic support (VPS) with either uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) or sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSF) in combination with hysterectomy for treating apical prolapse.
methodsA systematic search was performed through March 2021. Studies comparing ASC with VPS for treatment of UVP were included in the review. The primary outcome was the rate of overall anatomic prolapse failure per studies' definition. Secondary outcomes included evaluating isolated recurrent vaginal wall prolapse, postoperative POP-Q points, total vaginal length (TVL), and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) scores. Random effect analyses were generated utilizing R 4.0.2.
resultsOut of 4225 total studies, 4 met our inclusion criteria, including 226 patients in the ASC group and 199 patients in the VPS group. ASC was not found to be associated with a higher rate of vaginal wall prolapse recurrence (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.2-2.4; P = 0.33). There was no significant difference between groups for anterior or apical vaginal wall prolapse recurrence (P = 0.58 and P = 0.97, respectively). ASC was associated with significantly longer TVL (mean difference [MD]: 1.01; 95% CI = 0.33-1.70; P = 0.02) and better POP-Q Ba scores [MD = -0.23; 95% CI = -0.37; -0.10; P = 0.01].
conclusionsASC and vaginal pelvic support (either USLS or SSF) have comparable anatomical outcomes. However, weak evidence of a difference in TVL and Ba was found. The strength of the evidence in this study is based on the small number of observational studies. A large, randomized trial is highly warranted.
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.