ArticleInternational journal of women's health2024
Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy for the Management of Uterovaginal Prolapse: a Pilot, Single-Center Experience from Saudi Arabia.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2024. 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.
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
Background: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is an emerging uterine-preserving strategy for management of uterovaginal prolapse (UVP). The literature on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of UVP is very scarce from Saudi Arabia. This research examined the feasibility, clinical utility, and safety of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in a Saudi setting. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted, including all patients who met the inclusion criteria. The laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy technique was adapted with modifications from the "Oxford hysteropexy". The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as anatomical success in all vaginal compartments (UVP grade 0 or 1 postoperatively). The secondary endpoint was the mean change in point C. Descriptive data were summarized with numbers and percentages, while numerical data used means ± standard deviations. Fisher's exact and Student's Results: Overall, 21 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent indication for laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was UVP without anterior or posterior wall prolapse (n = 15, 71.4%), whereas the most frequent grade of UVP was grade III (n = 13, 61.9%). One patient (4.8%) required switch to laparotomy due to severe adhesions. No perioperative complications were recorded. The mean change in point C and hospital stay were 5.8 ± 2.1 (range: 0-8) and 1.4 ± 0.6 days (range: 1-3), respectively. Surgical success was achieved in 18 patients (85.7%). Only three patients experienced recurrences (one, two, and six months postoperatively). The mean change in point C was significantly higher in successful cases contrasted with the failed cases (6.5 versus 1.3). Conclusion: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of uterovaginal prolapse revealed technical feasibility, safety, and beneficial utility of the procedure. Further large-sized and multicentric investigations are important to gather additional pertinent information on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy.
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.