Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42500195›Full record

ReviewRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2026

Surgical treatment of apical prolapse Number 9 - 2026.

Marair Gracio Ferreira Sartori, Luiz Gustavo de Oliveira Brito, Lucas Schreiner, Aljerry Dias do Rego, Ana Selma Bertelli Picoloto, Andreisa Paiva Monteiro Bilhar, Carlos Del Roy, Daniela Siqueira Prado, Emerson de Oliveira, Jorge Milhem Haddad and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Marair Gracio Ferreira SartoriEscola Paulista de Medicina Universidade Federal de São Paulo São PauloSP Brazil Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3001-6076
Luiz Gustavo de Oliveira BritoFaculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto Universidade de São Paulo Ribeirão PretoSP Brazil Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7364-4718
Lucas SchreinerPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul Porto AlegreRS Brazil Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4444-9232
Aljerry Dias do RegoUniversidade Federal do Amapá MacapáAP Brazil Universidade Federal do Amapá, Macapá, AP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3049-7727
Ana Selma Bertelli PicolotoUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Porto AlegreRS Brazil Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2527-3729
Andreisa Paiva Monteiro BilharUniversidade Federal do Ceará FortalezaCE Brazil Universidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1014-1555
Carlos Del RoyCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina do ABC Santo AndréSP Brazil Centro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Santo André, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9769-5408
Daniela Siqueira PradoUniversidade Federal de Sergipe SE Brazil Universidade Federal de Sergipe, SE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3901-3832
Emerson de OliveiraCentro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina do ABC Santo AndréSP Brazil Centro Universitário Faculdade de Medicina do ABC, Santo André, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5261-5563
Jorge Milhem HaddadHospital das Clínicas Faculdade de Medicina Universidade de São Paulo São PauloSP Brazil Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9249-0312
Jussara Maria Valentim Cavalcante NunesUniversidade Federal do Piaui TeresinaPI Brazil Universidade Federal do Piaui, Teresina, PI, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1662-6791
Leticia Maria de OliveiraEscola Paulista de Medicina Universidade Federal de São Paulo São PauloSP Brazil Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8695-0669
Marilene Vale de Castro MonteiroUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais Belo HorizonteMG Brazil Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0411-3323
Rafael Mendes MoroniUniversidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná CascavelPR Brazil Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná, Cascavel, PR, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7745-4578
Sergio Brazileiro MartinsEscola Paulista de Medicina Universidade Federal de São Paulo São PauloSP Brazil Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1730-7415

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Apical genital prolapse represents a failure of DeLancey's level I support. Isolated vaginal hysterectomy does not correct apical prolapse. All surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse should include apical suspension. Sacrocolpopexy is the most durable technique for correcting vaginal vault prolapse, with the exception of colpocleisis. Vaginal techniques remain valid options in selected patients. Uterine preservation, when based on shared decision-making, is possible and safe for carefully evaluated patients. Recognition of the apical component in advanced cystocele is essential to prevent recurrence. Correction of the genital hiatus reduces the risk of recurrence, regardless of the surgical approach. Intraoperative cystoscopy is mandatory in vaginal uterosacral suspensions. Concomitant correction of stress urinary incontinence should be considered when diagnosed clinically or functionally.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresPelvic Organ ProlapseFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID42500195
PMCPMC13399375

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.