SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
The Manchester procedure: A systematic review of recurrence, perioperative measures, and financial cost, and a scoping review of sexual dysfunction, gynecologic cancer, and obstetric outcomes.
Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Systematic Review (and Meta-Analysis) and Global Expert Consensus Statements (U-POP): The Manchester Procedure.International urogynecology journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Manchester procedure (MP) is increasingly used to treat uterine prolapse. This combined systematic and scoping review aims to comprehensively evaluate clinical outcomes of the MP in comparison with other surgical techniques for uterine prolapse. MATERIAL AND
methodsPRISMA guidelines were applied for the systematic part of the review and PRISMA-ScR guidelines for the scoping part. PubMed and Embase were searched up to September 30, 2024. The study population comprised women >18 years undergoing MP or other surgical treatments for uterine prolapse. The primary outcome was recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse defined as anatomical or subjective recurrence or reoperation. Secondary outcomes were surgical and operative complications, operative outcome, lower urinary tract symptoms, sexual dysfunction, quality of life and satisfaction, gynecological cancer, obstetric outcome, and financial costs. Data collection was carried out as per PRISMA and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Quality of the randomized clinical trials was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool and non-randomized studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. PROSPERO (no.: CRD42024551520).
resultsA total of 19 articles were included: 11 were eligible for the systematic review and 11 for the scoping review, with three articles overlapping. Large cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial demonstrated lower risks of prolapse recurrence and reoperation following the MP compared with alternative surgical approaches. Blood loss, organ injury, and overall surgical complication rates were low across all procedures. Operative time and length of hospital stay were shorter after the MP than after vaginal hysterectomy and comparable to sacrospinous hysteropexy. Cost analyses showed significantly lower costs associated with the MP. Sexual function and dyspareunia outcomes were generally comparable between procedures. Cervical stenosis and risk of cancer after MP is low, with no evidence of increased gynecological cancer incidence or worse prognosis compared with anterior colporrhaphy for cystocele. Due to limited and concerning data on pregnancy outcomes, the MP should be reserved for women who have completed childbearing.
conclusionDespite limited high-quality evidence, the existing literature supports the MP as a clinically effective and cost-efficient uterus-preserving surgical option for uterine 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.