ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Clinical Comparison of Sacrohysteropexy and Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Uterovaginal Prolapse Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo compare anatomical outcomes, surgical success, and perioperative morbidity between abdominal sacrohysteropexy (mesh-based) and abdominal high uterosacral ligament suspension in premenopausal women undergoing uterine-preserving surgery for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 60 premenopausal women with stage II or higher uterovaginal prolapse were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either open abdominal sacrohysteropexy or abdominal high uterosacral ligament suspension. The primary outcome was apical surgical success at 12 months, defined as point C ≤-2 on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification examination and an absence of vaginal bulging symptoms. Secondary outcomes included anterior and posterior compartment measurements (Ba, Bp), operative time, hospital stay, complications, and new-onset urinary incontinence.
resultsSixty patients (30 per group) completed the 12-month follow-up. Surgical success was achieved in 83.3% of patients in the sacrohysteropexy group and 90% in the uterosacral ligament suspension group (p = 0.47). Mean postoperative point C was significantly lower in the sacrohysteropexy group (p = 0.001). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in Ba and Bp values. Operative time, hospital stay, and hemoglobin drop were significantly greater in the sacrohysteropexy group. Two cases of stage IV recurrence occurred in the sacrohysteropexy group. No mesh extrusion was observed.
conclusionsBoth open abdominal sacrohysteropexy and abdominal high uterosacral ligament suspension provide effective apical support in premenopausal women seeking uterine preservation. Although overall success rates were comparable, uterosacral ligament suspension was associated with shorter operative time and reduced perioperative morbidity. Surgical choice should be individualized, and larger studies with longer follow-up are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42230392What 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.