ReviewInternational journal of women's health2026
Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence on Clinical Outcomes and Safety.
Review in International journal of women's health, 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
Objective: To summarize current evidence on the clinical outcomes and safety of laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS) for apical pelvic organ prolapse and to distinguish direct comparative evidence from non-comparative outcome data. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidance. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, clinical trial registries, grey literature sources, and reference lists were searched from inception to May 2025. Eligible studies included adult women with apical pelvic organ prolapse of stage 2 or higher who underwent LLS with or without mesh. Both comparative and non-comparative clinical studies were eligible if they reported anatomical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, complications, reoperation, recurrence, or perioperative outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted data. Because of heterogeneity in study design, surgical technique, comparator status, follow-up duration, and outcome definitions, findings were synthesized narratively and meta-analysis was not performed. Results: Thirteen studies were included: one randomized comparative study, four non-randomized surgical comparative studies, one quasi-experimental care-intervention study, and seven non-comparative observational studies. The available evidence suggested favorable apical and anterior anatomical outcomes after LLS, with reported apical success generally ranging from 87.3% to 100%. Patient-reported outcomes, including symptom improvement, satisfaction, quality of life, and sexual function, generally improved after surgery. Reported major complications and reoperations were uncommon, although safety outcomes were inconsistently defined and underpowered in several studies. Direct comparative evidence was limited and heterogeneous, and most studies were observational. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that LLS may provide favorable anatomical and patient-reported outcomes for apical and anterior compartment prolapse, but certainty remains limited because of heterogeneous, mostly observational evidence. Further multicenter studies with standardized long-term outcomes are needed.
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.