ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Comparative Outcomes of Uterus-Preserving and Hysterectomy Approaches in Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension Versus Sacrocolpopexy: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Median 50-Month Patient-Reported and 14-Month Anatomical Outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Single-port laparoscopic lateral suspension with total versus subtotal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective comparative study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Fascial fixation versus non-fixation in vNOTES lateral suspension after vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
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
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS) with and without concomitant hysterectomy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, in order to guide patient-centered surgical planning.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 87 patients who underwent LLS between 2021 and 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: LLS with concomitant total laparoscopic hysterectomy (n = 43), and uterus-preserving LLS (n = 44). Surgical parameters, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scores, complication rates, recurrence, pelvic pain, and urinary incontinence outcomes were compared over a minimum of 12 months' follow-up.
resultsBoth groups achieved significant improvements in all POP-Q points (p < 0.0001), with no statistically significant difference in anatomical success, recurrence, pelvic pain, or urinary incontinence. Operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay were significantly higher in the hysterectomy group (p < 0.0001). Vaginal length was better preserved in uterus-preserving procedures. No major intra- or postoperative complications were reported.
conclusionsConcomitant hysterectomy during LLS increases surgical burden without offering clear anatomical or functional advantages. Uterus-preserving LLS is a safe and effective option and may be preferred in appropriately selected patients through shared decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41214285What 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.