Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37581670›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2023

Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rosa A Enklaar, Sascha F M Schulten, Hugo W F van Eijndhoven, Mirjam Weemhoff, Sanne A L van Leijsen, Marijke C van der Weide, Jeroen van Bavel, Anna C Verkleij-Hagoort, Eddy M M Adang, Kirsten B Kluivers and 1 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEquivalence TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Surgical treatment of apical prolapse Number 9 - 2026.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Rosa A EnklaarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Sascha F M SchultenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Hugo W F van EijndhovenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Isala, Zwolle, the Netherlands.
Mirjam WeemhoffDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Sanne A L van LeijsenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Marijke C van der WeideDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jeroen van BavelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands.
Anna C Verkleij-HagoortDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.
Eddy M M AdangDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Kirsten B KluiversDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
SAM Study Group
Strateji Araşdırmalar Mərkəzi · AZRadboud University Nijmegen · NLAmphia Ziekenhuis · NLIsala · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: In many countries, sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most commonly practiced uterus-preserving technique in women undergoing a first operation for pelvic organ prolapse. However, there are no direct comparisons of outcomes after sacrospinous hysteropexy vs an older technique, the Manchester procedure. Objective: To compare success of sacrospinous hysteropexy vs the Manchester procedure for the surgical treatment of uterine descent. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands among 434 adult patients undergoing a first surgical treatment for uterine descent that did not protrude beyond the hymen. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to undergo sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 217) or Manchester procedure (n = 217). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite outcome of success, defined as absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by a standardized vaginal support quantification system, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of prolapse retreatment (pessary or surgery) within 2 years after the operation. The predefined noninferiority margin was 9%. Secondary outcomes were anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and surgery-related complications. Results: Among 393 participants included in the as-randomized analysis (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 151 of 196 (77.0%) in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 172 of 197 (87.3%) in the Manchester procedure group achieved the composite outcome of success. Sacrospinous hysteropexy did not meet the noninferiority criterion of -9% for the lower limit of the CI (risk difference, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.8% to -2.8%; P = .63 for noninferiority). At 2-year follow-up, perioperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Based on the composite outcome of surgical success 2 years after primary uterus-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery for uterine descent, these results support a finding that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure. Trial Registration: TrialRegister.nl Identifier: NTR 6978.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseUterine ProlapseAgedFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeUterus

Identifiers

PMID37581670
PMCPMC10427949
OpenAlexW4385827691

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.