Observational studyScientific reports2026
One-year outcomes of an innovative laparoscopic pectopexy procedure using inverted T-mesh for treatment of advanced uterine and anterior vaginal prolapse.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07411898 (One-year Outcomes of an Innovative Laparoscopic Pectopexy Procedure Using Inverted T-mesh for Treatment of Advanced Uterine and Anterior Vaginal Prolapse.), which is not on this 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.
One-year Outcomes of an Innovative Laparoscopic Pectopexy Procedure Using Inverted T-mesh for Treatment of Advanced Uterine and Anterior Vaginal Prolapse.
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
Abstract
This prospective pilot study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an innovative laparoscopic pectopexy (LP) technique employing an inverted T-mesh for the concomitant treatment of advanced uterine and anterior vaginal prolapse. 42 patients (62.7%) underwent the innovative LP procedure, while 25 patients (37.3%) with predominant uterine or vaginal vault prolapse underwent conventional laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy or colpopexy (LS). The primary outcome was the anatomic outcomes and functional results. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and reoperations. At baseline, the demographics of the LP group was younger, with lower body mass index (BMI), and were more sexually active when compared to the LS group (P < 0.05). At one-year follow-up, the anatomic cure rate (POP-Q stage < 2) was significantly lower in the LP group (78.6% [33/42] vs. 92.0% [23/25]; P = 0.0108). Functional outcomes were assessed using the PFDI-20, POPIQ-7 and PISQ-12 questionnaires, and significant improvements were observed in all domains. Multiple logistic regression revealed that the type of surgical procedure was not a significant predictor of outcome. Levator avulsion was the only variable significantly associated with poorer results (P < 0.05). Both groups demonstrated favorable postoperative outcomes, and had no severe surgical complications. Limitations of this study included non-randomization of the sample groups, small sample size and a follow-up time of one year. Despite these limitations, the findings suggest that the innovative LP procedure is a safe and feasible option for the concomitant management of advanced uterine and anterior vaginal prolapse. However, levator ani avulsion markedly increases the risk of anatomic recurrence. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT07411898; 13/02/2026).
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.