ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Comparison of postoperative recovery and complications: laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal sacrospinous ligament suspension.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of this study was to determine whether functional recovery and complication rates differed between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and transvaginal sacrospinous ligament suspension (TSS) in patients with moderate-to-severe uterine prolapse and vaginal wall prolapse.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 321 patients who underwent surgery between April 2021 and February 2023. Participants were divided into an LSC group (n=163) and a TSS group (n=158). Since pelvic organ prolapse may occur following childbirth, complication and recurrence rates were compared between groups. Factors associated with recurrence were analyzed using logistic regression.
resultsCompared to LSC, TSS had shorter operation time, less blood loss, and faster return of flatus. Both groups improved in pelvic organ prolapse quantification scores, pelvic floor distress inventory-20, and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire-12, with greater improvement in the LSC group. TSS was associated with higher rates of urinary incontinence and recurrence (5.52% vs. 13.29%). Multivariate analysis showed TSS, prior pelvic surgery, and combined compartment prolapse were risk factors for recurrence, while age <60 and body mass index <24 kg/m
conclusionIn patients with moderate-to-severe uterine and vaginal wall prolapse who are medically fit, LSC provides superior pelvic floor anatomical restoration, quality of life improvement, and recurrence control compared to TSS. For patients who cannot tolerate laparoscopic surgery, TSS remains a safe alternative, with both procedures demonstrating comparable overall safety.
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.