Trial reportJAMA2023
Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Manchester procedure: A systematic review of recurrence, perioperative measures, and financial cost, and a scoping review of sexual dysfunction, gynecologic cancer, and obstetric outcomes.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Treatment outcomes of Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy for mid-compartment prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Surgical outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy and hysteropreservation for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of Manchester procedure versus sacrospinous hysteropexy: A follow-up analysis of a randomized clinical trial.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Patient Risk Factors for Incidental Pathology After Uterovaginal Surgery for Apical Prolapse: Systematic Review and Global Expert Consensus Statements.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Surgical Strategies for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- A Systematic Review (and Meta-Analysis) and Global Expert Consensus Statements (U-POP): The Manchester Procedure.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Thrombospondin-1 as a Mechanosensitive Matrix Protein Driving Fibroblast Senescence: A Novel Pathogenic Target for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Environmental Impact of a Vaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Procedure: A Life Cycle Assessment with Scenario Modelling of Mitigation Strategies.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy in Women with Uterine Prolapse: 10-year Follow-up of a Randomised Controlled Trial.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Key Conditions for Successful Implementation of the Manchester Procedure as Primary Surgical Treatment for Mild to Moderate Uterine Prolapse: A Qualitative Study Among Dutch Gynecologists.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Reliability of low-field upright MRI-based assessment of the polypropylene mesh after sacrocolporectopexy.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Long-term clinical outcomes of ischial spine fascia fixation compared with sacrospinous ligament fixation: a prospective cohort study over 10 years.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- One-year outcomes of an innovative laparoscopic pectopexy procedure using inverted T-mesh for treatment of advanced uterine and anterior vaginal prolapse.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
- Surgical treatment of apical prolapse Number 9 - 2026.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2026Review
- Global Trends and Burden of Non-Neoplastic Gynecologic Diseases Among Women of Childbearing Age, 1990-2021: a GBD 2021 Analysis.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Suspension with Hysterectomy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective Cohort Study with Over 7 Years of Follow-Up.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Feasibility and Safety of Same-Day Discharge After a Manchester Procedure.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Retrospective comparative study on efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.