ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Modified paravaginal repair combined with sacrospinous ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled study.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNative tissue repair surgery for pelvic organ prolapse is associated with a high recurrence rate, and accumulating evidence has highlighted adverse events related to mesh use. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a modified paravaginal repair technique combined with sacrospinous ligament suspension for treating pelvic organ prolapse.
methodsThis randomized, non-inferiority, endpoint assessor-blinded study included patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Participants were assigned to either the intervention group, who underwent the modified paravaginal repair with sacrospinous ligament suspension (MPVR-SSL), or the control group, who received laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). Postoperative follow-up continued for 1 year.
resultsAmong the 173 patients evaluated for eligibility, 160 were enrolled, while 13 were excluded. Of those enrolled, 80 were randomized to each group. At the 12-month follow-up, five patients in the MPVR-SSL group and four in the LSC group were lost to follow-up. Success rates at 12 months were 98.7% (75/76) in the LSC group and 97.3% (73/75) in the MPVR-SSL group, and no significant difference was found between them ( P = 0.552). No cases of ureteral injury, cystotomy/urethral injury, bowel injury, vascular injury, nerve injury, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism were identified in the MPVR-SSL group. A few cases of vaginal bleeding, granulation, or fallopian tube prolapse occurred. Neuromuscular pain was more frequent in the MPVR-SSL group than in the LSC group (13 vs. 3, P = 0.008). However, all patients experienced symptom resolution within 3 months.
conclusionThe MPVR-SSL proved to be an effective and safe approach for treating pelvic organ prolapse.
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.