ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Midterm comparison of laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of moderate to severe apical prolapse.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Erroneous and Incomplete Reporting of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Unilateral pectineal suspension with mesh as a rescue procedure when sacrocolpopexy is not feasible: a case series.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to retrospectively analyze the midterm efficacy of laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension (HUS) and sacrocolpopexy (SC) in the treatment of moderate to severe apical prolapse.
methodsPatients who underwent laparoscopic HUS and SC in our center from 2013 to 2019 with follow-ups were included, consisting of laparoscopic HUS (group A, n=72) or SC (mesh added, group B, n=54). The general data of patients, pelvic organ prolapse quantitative examination (POP-Q) score, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory short form 20 score (PFDI-20) before and after operation, perioperative conditions, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and postoperative complications were collected for statistical analysis and comparison between groups.
resultsThere was no statistical difference in preoperative data between groups. The median follow-up time was 48 months. The objective recurrence rate of group A was higher than that of group B, without statistical significance. One patient in group B had a second operation owing to recurrence. The exposure rate of mesh in group B was 3.70%. There was no significant difference in deviation of POP-Q and PFDI-20 pre- and post-operation. The proportion of new defecation abnormalities in group A was lower. The total hospitalization expenses and surgical consumables in group B were significantly higher than those in group A.
conclusionsThe midterm curative effect of laparoscopic HUS is similar to that of SC in the treatment of moderate to severe apical prolapse. The former has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, lower cost, fewer new defecation abnormalities, and there were no complications related to mesh.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37222736What 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.