ArticleScientific reports2025
Retrospective comparative study on efficacy and safety of different surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Comparative Outcomes of Uterus-Preserving and Hysterectomy Approaches in Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Fibrin sealant-enhanced single-port LLS with cervical preservation and "homemade" mesh: an innovative surgical technique for pelvic organ prolapse.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2025Article
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
Abstract
The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of lateral abdominal wall suspension during surgery compared with traditional procedures in patients with pelvic organ prolapse without uterine preservation. Collect the data of patients with uterine and vaginal wall prolapse who underwent surgery from January 2022 to December 2023. All patients were divided into three groups according to different surgical procedures: Study Group (laparoscopic total hysterectomy + bilateral salpingectomy/oophorectomy + lateral abdominal wall suspension + posterior colporrhaphy), Control Group 1 (laparoscopic-assisted vaginal total hysterectomy + bilateral salpingectomy/bilateral oophorectomy + anterior and posterior colporrhaphy), and Control Group 2 (vaginal total hysterectomy + anterior and posterior colporrhaphy).Statistically analyze the clinical indicators and recurrence situations in different Groups. Patients in Study group exhibited significantly higher preoperative POP-Q staging for pelvic organ prolapse severity(P < 0.01), longer operative times(P = 0.01, P < 0.01), but significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss(P = 0.01, P < 0.01)and shorter postoperative urinary catheterization duration(P = 0.01, P < 0.01) compared to the other two groups. No differences were detected in postoperative infection, vaginal bleeding or duration of hospitalization(P > 0.05). However, stress incontinence in 1-year after operation has no difference between study group and control groups. Recurrence rates in Control Group 1 is higher than Study Group (P = 0.02), While, it has no difference between Study Group and Control Group 2. Lateral abdominal wall suspension, despite a longer operative duration, surpasses traditional surgeries in minimizing intraoperative blood loss, cutting down the time of postoperative urinary catheter retention, and lowering the postoperative recurrence rate. To firmly establish the long-term curative effects and safety of lateral abdominal wall suspension, future research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is essential.
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.