ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Laparoscopic lateral suspension combined with uterosacral ligament folding and shortening versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- vNOTES Versus Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Single-Center, Single-Surgeon Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension Versus Sacrocolpopexy: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Median 50-Month Patient-Reported and 14-Month Anatomical Outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Interpreting Mid-Term LAWS versus Sacrocolpopexy Outcomes in Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse [Letter].International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Mid-Term Outcomes of Posterior Pelvic Reconstruction Combined with Lateral Abdominal Wall Suspension versus Sacrocolpopexy for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Comparative Study.International journal of women's health · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) significantly impacts women's quality of life, with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) considered the gold standard for treatment. However, LSC carries risks of complications, prompting exploration of alternatives. This study compared the efficacy of Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension (LLS) combined with uterosacral ligament folding and shortening (LLS-ULFS) versus LSC for POP treatment. Overview: A retrospective cohort study included 445 women with POP-Q stage ≥ II (LSC group: n=232; LLS-ULFS group: n=213). Surgical outcomes, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated over a 2-year follow-up period at Jiangxi Maternal and Child Health Hospital. Results: Both groups achieved high anatomical success rates (LSC vs. LLS-ULFS): apical (96.98% vs. 94.84%), anterior (94.40% vs. 96.24%), and posterior (96.12% vs. 94.37%) compartments (all P>0.05). The LLS-ULFS group demonstrated superior perioperative outcomes: shorter operation time (85 vs. 105 min, P<0.001), reduced blood loss (40 vs. 50 ml, P<0.001), and lower pain scores (VAS: 4 vs. 4, P<0.001). Long-term follow-up showed significantly better patient-reported outcomes in the LLS-ULFS group for PFDI-20, POPDI-6, CRADI-8, and PISQ-12 scores (all P<0.05), indicating improved quality of life and sexual function. Complication rates were comparable (P>0.05). Discussion: LLS-ULFS achieves anatomical success equivalent to LSC while offering advantages in operative efficiency and recovery. The technique's avoidance of presacral dissection likely contributes to reduced pain and complications. Conclusion: LLS-ULFS is a viable alternative to LSC, providing comparable anatomical correction with superior perioperative outcomes and enhanced quality of life. Its efficacy supports broader clinical adoption for POP management.
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.