The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of 2 Transvaginal Surgical Approaches and Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Apical Vaginal Prolapse: The OPTIMAL Randomized Trial
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: More than 300,000 surgeries are performed annually in the United States for pelvic organ prolapse. Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) are commonly performed transvaginal surgeries to correct apical prolapse. Little is known about their comparative efficacy and safety, and it is unknown whether perioperative behavioral therapy with pelvic floor muscle training (BPMT) improves outcomes of prolapse surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between (1) SSLF and ULS and (2) perioperative BPMT and usual care in women undergoing surgery for vaginal prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized trial of 374 women undergoing surgery to treat both apical vaginal prolapse and stress urinary incontinence was conducted between 2008 and 2013 at 9 US medical centers. Two-year follow-up rate was 84.5%. INTERVENTIONS: The surgical intervention was transvaginal surgery including midurethral sling with randomization to SSLF (n = 186) or ULS (n = 188); the behavioral intervention was randomization to receive perioperative BPMT (n = 186) or usual care (n = 188). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome for the surgical intervention (surgical success) was defined as (1) no apical descent greater than one-third into vaginal canal or anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen (anatomic success), (2) no bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms, and (3) no re-treatment for prolapse at 2 years. For the behavioral intervention, primary outcome at 6 months was urinary symptom scores (Urinary Distress Inventory; range 0-300, higher scores worse), and primary outcomes at 2 years were prolapse symptom scores (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory; range 0-300, higher scores worse) and anatomic success. RESULTS: At 2 years, surgical group was not significantly associated with surgical success rates (ULS, 59.2% [93/157] vs SSLF, 60.5% [92/152]; unadjusted difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -12.2% to 9.6%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.5) or serious adverse event rates (ULS, 16.5% [31/188] vs SSLF, 16.7% [31/186]; unadjusted difference, -0.2%; 95% CI, -7.7% to 7.4%; adjusted OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.6). Perioperative BPMT was not associated with greater improvements in urinary scores at 6 months (adjusted treatment difference, -6.7; 95% CI, -19.7 to 6.2), prolapse scores at 24 months (adjusted treatment difference, -8.0; 95% CI, -22.1 to 6.1), or anatomic success at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Two years after vaginal surgery for prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, neither ULS nor SSLF was significantly superior to the other for anatomic, functional, or adverse event outcomes. Perioperative BPMT did not improve urinary symptoms at 6 months or prolapse outcomes at 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00597935.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“The lack of individualized progression and reporting of adherence might be a reason for the limited benefit of PFMT on the postoperative PFM function found in those studies.14,38,39”
From Postoperative Physiotherapy in Women Undergoing Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [39]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This differs from the findings of Frawley and colleagues, Barber and colleagues, and Duarte and colleagues, 14,39,40 who did not find improvement in PFM strength or EMG measures.”
From Postoperative Physiotherapy in Women Undergoing Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [39]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The findings of this study regarding the effect on QOL and symptoms are similar to those of most previous studies.13,14,38 -40”
From Postoperative Physiotherapy in Women Undergoing Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [39]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Like Barber and colleagues 39 and the current study, they included individualized PFM exercises instead of a standard protocol.”
From Postoperative Physiotherapy in Women Undergoing Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [39]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A single trial (Barber 2014) reported no difference in rate of transfusion between the uterosacral and sacrospinous colpopexy (RR 1.67 95% CI 0.50 to 5.60; n=30; Analysis 6.14).”
From Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse (2023) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Three trials were included: Barber 2014 and Martins 2020 compared uterosacral and sacrospinous colpopexy, and Natale 2010 compared uterosacral colpopexy and levator myorrhaphy with no differences identified between the groups in anatomical, functional and perioperative outcomes.”
From Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse (2023) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, there was no effect of PFMT in this study on either PFM strength or POP.”
From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [62]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, if there was no short-term effect of a PFMT program [49, 50, 62, 67, 71, 75], then long-term effects are unlikely.”
From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [62]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) data suggest that this approach might be associated with a high surgical failure rate of up to 35% at 2 years [5].”
From Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Two trials exclusively assessed women undergoing primary prolapse repairs only (Barber 2014; Duarte 2020), with no other trials excluding previous prolapse surgeries.”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Based on data from a single trial (Barber 2014), there may be no clinically relevant difference in POPQ assessment for Point C with or without pelvic floor training (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.74; 1 study, 307 women; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.4).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Based on data from a single trial (Barber 2014), there may be no clinically relevant difference in repeat surgery for prolapse with or without pelvic floor training (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.26; P = 0.82; 1 study, 316 women; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.2).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Based on data from a single trial (Barber 2014), there may be no clinically relevant difference in POPQ assessment for Point Ba with or without pelvic floor training (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.74; 1 study, 308 women; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.4).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Based on data from a single trial (Barber 2014), there may be no clinically relevant difference in POPQ assessment for Point Bp with or without pelvic floor training (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.76; 1 study, 308 women; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.4).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Based on data from a single trial (Barber 2014), there may be no clinically relevant difference in recurrent prolapse on examination with or without pelvic floor training (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.29; P = 0.49; 1 study, 307 women; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.3).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Based on data from a single trial (Barber 2014), there was no clinically relevant difference in patient awareness of prolapse with or without pelvic floor training (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87; 1 study, 305 women; low‐certainty evidence; Analysis 1.1).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This contradicts the results of studies with a high number of postoperative follow-up sessions, 39,40 which have demonstrated a limited benefit of PFMT on strength measures.”
From Postoperative Physiotherapy in Women Undergoing Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These have been shown to be essentially equivalent in efficacy.9”
From Characteristics Associated With Surgical Failure After Native Tissue Apical Prolapse Repair (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, there was no effect of the original training program in this study [62], and a long-term effect may therefore not be expected.”
From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [62]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two trials reported on objective failure at any site (Barber 2014; Mueller 2017).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Eleven full publications or meeting abstracts which were published from 2005 until 2021 [62–72] were included.”
From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [62]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“only Barber et al. (2014) [62] reported long-term adherence to PFMT”
From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [62]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“They found that 93.4% reported to adhere to PFMT 6 months after the intervention and 81.4% at 2 years.”
From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [62]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“given comparable outcomes), 69”
From Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a prospective cohort study (2025) · cites this paper as [69]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“At two years, BPMT did not significantly improve urinary or prolapse symptom scores (UDI, POPDI) or anatomical outcomes.”
From Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Following Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Recommendation from Scientific Literature (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Concomitant stress incontinence was an inclusion criterion in Barber 2014, and an exclusion criterion in Bray 2017.”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The length of follow‐up varied, from a few days of postoperative follow‐up in Chan 2014 and Henn 2016, to 24 months in Barber 2014.”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“POP surgery with or without pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT): seven trials with a total of 1032 women (Barber 2014; Brandt 2019; Duarte 2020; Mathew 2021; McClurg 2014; Nyhus 2020; Pauls 2013).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Seven trials reported on PROMs (Antosh 2013; Arunachalam 2019; Barber 2014; Duarte 2020; Mueller 2017; Pauls 2013; Russo 2020).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“One trial reported on repeat surgery for recurrent prolapse (Barber 2014).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Three trials reported on awareness of prolapse (Ballard 2014; Barber 2014; Mueller 2017).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Two trials reported on POPQ assessments (Barber 2014; Mueller 2017).”
From Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery (2025) · cites this paper as Barber 2014
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the OPTIMAL trial was also unable to demonstrate a clear superiority of one apical suspension technique over the other in terms of either success rates or complication rates [32”
From The uterus debate in vaginal native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: Hysteropexy versus hysterectomy – A systematic review and meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“This mismatch, and that between expectations and goals, may be influenced by inadequate counselling, poor ‘customer’ care, consideration of the impact of prolapse on body image, sexual function, and perhaps other indirect effects; those on a woman's anxiety, depression, and cognitive state [25, 26, 27, 28, 29].”
From How Can We Improve the Assessment and Indifferent Outcomes From Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management From Conservative and Surgical Therapies? ICI‐RS 2025 (2026) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“The incidence of serious adverse events from other trials range from 11.6-16.7% [20, 21].”
From Outpatient visits versus telephone interviews for postoperative care: a randomized controlled trial (2019) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“Moreover, the failure rate of unilateral sacrospinous fixation is high (40–70%) [ 29 , 30 ].”
From Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after hysterectomy; a 10-year national follow-up study (2024) · cites this paper as [29]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dindo, D., Demartines, N., & Clavien, P.-A. (2004) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae · Cited by 31,378
The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction
Bump, R. C., Mattiasson, A., Bø, K., Brubaker, L. P., DeLancey, J. O. L., Klarskov, P., Shull, B. L., & Smith, A. R. B. (1996) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0 · Cited by 4,275
Self-citationEpidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence
OLSEN, A., SMITH, V, BERGSTROM, J., COLLING, J., & CLARK, A. (1997) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00058-6 · Cited by 3,335
Burger, J. W. A., Luijendijk, R. W., Hop, W. C. J., Halm, J. A., Verdaasdonk, E. G. G., & Jeekel, J. J. (2004) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000141193.08524.e7 · Cited by 1,615
Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women
Maher, C., Feiner, B., Baeßler, K., & Glazener, C. M. A. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004014.pub4 · Cited by 1,115
Dumoulin, C. L., Hay-Smith, J. E., & Habée-Séguin, G. M. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005654.pub3 · Cited by 1,105
Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women
Maher, C., Feiner, B., Baessler, K., & Schmid, C. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004014.pub5 · Cited by 784
Retropubic versus Transobturator Midurethral Slings for Stress Incontinence
Richter, H. E., Albo, M., Zyczynski, H. M., Kenton, K. S., Norton, P., Sirls, L. T., II, Kraus, S. R., Chai, T. C., Lemack, G. E., Dandreo, K. J., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0912658 · Cited by 687
Self-citationBehavioral vs Drug Treatment for Urge Urinary Incontinence in Older Women
Burgio, K. L., Locher, J. L., Goode, P. S., Hardin, J. M., McDowell, B. J., Dombrowski, M., & Candib, D. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.23.1995 · Cited by 629
Self-citationBarber, M. D., Kuchibhatla, M. N., Pieper, C. F., & Bump, R. C. (2001) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1067/mob.2001.118659 · Cited by 617
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 431
Cohn, J. A., Brown, E. T., Kowalik, C. G., Kaufman, M. R., Dmochowski, R. R., & Reynolds, W. M. (2016) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.9229.1 · Cited by 2
The Evidence for Female Pelvic Medicine Interventions
Lamin, E., Strother, M. C., & Smith, A. L. (2017) · Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports · doi:10.1007/s11884-017-0399-2 · Cited by 2
Surgical Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Ethiopian Women: What Is the Preferred Approach?
Kenne, K. A., Abreha, M., Hart, K. D., Gregory, W. T., & Nardos, R. (2020) · Urogynecology · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000000836 · Cited by 2
Ferrante, K. L., Gantz, M. G., Sridhar, A., Smith, A. L., Rahn, D. D., Ellington, D. R., Weidner, A. C., Wohlrab, K. J., Mazloomdoost, D., Moalli, P., et al. (2020) · Urogynecology · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000000893 · Cited by 2
Self-citationAnatomic identification of laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension: A step-by-step procedure
OuYang, Y., Xu, W., Li, F., Wang, R., & Zhao, X. (2022) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-022-05257-8 · Cited by 2
General Complications of Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery
Solomon, E. R., & Barber, M. D. (2012) · Humana Press eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-924-2_2 · Cited by 2
Self-citationLu, Z., Chen, Y., Wang, X., Li, J., Hua, K., & Hu, C. (2021) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-194855/v1 · Cited by 2
Hafedh, B., Idris, S., Nadreen, F., Banasser, A., Iskandarani, R., & Baradwan, S. (2024) · International Journal of Women's Health · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s474835 · Cited by 1
Maher, C. (2021) · Pelvic Floor Disorders · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40862-6_55 · Cited by 1
Kearney, R., Wagg, A., Bower, W., Chapple, C., Khullar, V., Robinson, D., Taithongchai, A., Hobson, P. T., Wein, A., & Abrams, P. (2026) · Neurourology and Urodynamics · doi:10.1002/nau.70272 · Cited by 1
Lamberti, G., Giraudo, D., Ciardi, G., & Levis, J. K. (2026) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm15031116 · Cited by 2
“Barber et al. (2014) [33] examined perioperative behavioral therapy combined with PFMT (BPMT) versus usual care.”
Sacarin, G., Abu-Awwad, A., Nitu, R., Craina, M. L., Prodan, M., Timircan, M. O., Betea, R., Dinu, A. R., & Abu-Awwad, S.-A. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13080864 · Cited by 1
Huang, C.-C., Lin, K., Sung, I.-C., Loo, Z.-X., & Long, C. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14134703 · Cited by 1
Perioperative Complications in the Primary Vaginal Mesh Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Deltetto, F., Deltetto, I., Giannantoni, A., Jorgensen, M., Landi, S., Manni, M., Marcato, L., Mirabella, D., Libretti, A., & Remorgida, V. (2025) · Surgeries · doi:10.3390/surgeries6040089 · Cited by 1
Proteomic insights into vaginal mesh complications and treatment targets
Artsen, A. M., Chu, T., Cantrell, P. S., Zeng, X., Sun, M., Yates, N. A., Zyczynski, H. M., Kulkarni, M. M., & Moalli, P. (2025) · Acta Biomaterialia · doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2025.10.048 · Cited by 1
Ten Years of Laparoscopic Pectopexy: A Case Series Analysis
Noé, G. K., Farsaki, E., Anapolski, M., & Pitsillidi, A. (2025) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-025-06377-7 · Cited by 1
Why Do I Favor Prophylactic Sling for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair?
Saçıntı, K. G., & Harmanli, O. (2026) · Urogynecology · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000001779 · Cited by 1
Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in the Elderly
Ohmann, E. L., & Brucker, B. M. (2014) · Current Geriatrics Reports · doi:10.1007/s13670-014-0111-8 · Cited by 1
Sacrospinous Ligament Vault Suspension
Carmel, M. E. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45268-5_8 · Cited by 1
Uterosacral Ligament Vaginal Vault Suspension
Dobberfuhl, A. D., & De, E. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45268-5_9 · Cited by 1
Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Perineal Hernias
Sands, D. R., Lavy, D. S., & Hurtado, E. A. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65966-4_12 · Cited by 1
Antosh, D. D., Yurteri-Kaplan, L. A., Shveiky, D., Liu, M., Heisler, C., Hegde, A., & Grimes, C. L. (2019) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-019-03955-4 · Cited by 1
Unilateral Anterior Sacrospinous Ligament Hysteropexy: a Single-Center Experience
Sanderson, D. J., Matloubieh, J., & Buchsbaum, G. M. (2020) · SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine · doi:10.1007/s42399-020-00327-8 · Cited by 1
Directive clinique no413 : Traitement chirurgical du prolapsus génital apical chez les femmes
Geoffrion, R., & Larouche, M. (2021) · Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.002 · Cited by 1
Pelvic organ prolapse, abdominal hernias, and inguinal hernias
Kirby, A. C., & Lentz, G. M. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-65399-2.00029-2 · Cited by 1
Apical Support Procedures at the Time of Hysterectomy for Benign Indications
Wang, R., Tulikangas, P. K., & Harvie, H. S. (2022) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004764 · Cited by 1
Romanova, A. L., Gaigbe-Togbe, B., Lieberman, D., Seaman, C., Woodbury, C., Tran, A., Hardart, A., & Dabney, L. (2023) · Urogynecology · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000001315 · Cited by 1
Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Avoiding Complications
Dancz, C. E., Tavakoli, A., & Fullerton, M. E. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14881-1_70 · Cited by 1
Obesity and Native Tissue Repairs: A Secondary Analysis of the OPTIMAL Trial
Hagedorn, M. K., Locklear, T. M., Evans, S., Karp, N. E., & Greer, W. J. (2024) · Urogynecology · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000001498 · Cited by 1
Fischer, A. (2016) · Manuelle Medizin · doi:10.1007/s00337-016-0203-y · Cited by 1
Apical Suspension During Prolapse Repair: When Is It indicated?
Hudson, C. O., & Northington, G. M. (2018) · Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports · doi:10.1007/s13669-018-0232-8 · Cited by 1
Pelvic Floor Muscle Training and Prolapse: Prevention or Treatment?
Biroli, A., & Lamberti, G. (2018) · Urodynamics, neurourology and pelvic floor dysfunctions · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59195-7_6 · Cited by 1
Minimally Invasive Approach in Urogynecology: An Evidence-Based Approach
Favero, T. P., & Baeßler, K. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72592-5_17 · Cited by 1
Zilberlicht, A., DWYER, P. L., Rajamaheswari, N., Dykes, N., & Karmakar, D. (2020) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-020-04300-w · Cited by 1
Pelvic Floor, Urinary Problems and the Menopause
Gambacciani, M., Russo, E., Guevara, M. M., & Simoncini, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108869102.013 · Cited by 1
Approach to Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Burton, C., & Anger, J. T. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-54839-1_15 · Cited by 1
Mini-review: Modern Concept of Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Aitbayeva, B., Саятович, И. С., & Kenzhebekovna, S. L. (2022) · Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.8804 · Cited by 1
Special Evidence-Based Considerations in Geriatric Gynecologic Care: Pelvic Floor Disorders
Norris, K. P., Illston, J. D., Malek, J. M., Ellington, D. R., & Richter, H. E. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-76271-1_12 · Cited by 1
Self-citationWein, A. J. (2018) · The Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.033 · Cited by 1
Husby, K. R., & Klarskov, N. (2020) · Urogynecology · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000000886 · Cited by 1
Abraham, N., & Goldman, H. B. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1504-0_5
For Vaginal Prolapse, Is One Type of Surgery Any Better Than the Other?
Seibel, B. E. (2014) · Journal watch · doi:10.1056/nejm-jw.na33916
Nonsurgical vs. Surgical Treatment Options for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Review of the Current Evidence
Kow, N., Siff, L. N., & Ferzandi, T. R. (2016) · Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports · doi:10.1007/s13669-016-0157-z
Quality Measures for Prolapse Management
Foust‐Wright, C., Hudson, P. B., & Pulliam, S. J. (2016) · Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports · doi:10.1007/s13669-016-0160-4
Costantini, E., Natale, F., Carbone, A., Pastore, A. L., & Palleschi, G. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25430-2_7
Special Evidence-Based Considerations in Geriatric Gynecologic Care: Pelvic Floor Disorders
Illston, J. D., Malek, J. M., Ellington, D. R., & Richter, H. E. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31831-8_13
Self-citationOriginal Article Authors: Vanessa Nicolau-
Geoffrion, R., Lee, T., Brown, H. W., Minaglia, S. M., Tiwari, P., & Cundiff, G. W. (2014)
Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Avoiding Complications
Dancz, C. E., & Fullerton, M. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17002-2_70-1
High Midline Levator Myorrhaphy for Vault Prolapse Repair
Wu, Y., & Zimmern, P. E. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45268-5_11
Uterosacral Ligament Suspension
Sajadi, K. P., & Vasavada, S. (2017) · Current clinical urology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49855-3_7
Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension
Dielubanza, E. J., & Pizarro‐Berdichevsky, J. (2017) · Current clinical urology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49855-3_8
Comparative Effectiveness Trials
Siff, L. N., & Barber, M. D. (2016)
Self-citationHysterectomy Techniques in Prolapse Situations
Jeffery, S. T. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22497-8_120
Yurteri-Kaplan, L. A., Antosh, D. D., Bortolini, M. A. T., Umek, W. H., Kim-Fine, S., & Grimes, C. L. (2018) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-018-3642-2
Bonde, L., Püschl, I. C., Møller, L. A., Ottesen, B., Breinegaard, N., & Gimbel, H. M. (2018) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.04.022
Fascial Surgical Repair for Prolapse
Meschìa, M. (2018) · Urodynamics, neurourology and pelvic floor dysfunctions · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59195-7_8
Descensus urogenitalis: aktuelle Evidenz zur operativen Therapie
Nazifovic, E., & Tammaa, A. (2018) · Journal für Urologie und Urogynäkologie/Österreich · doi:10.1007/s41972-018-0039-x
Sukgen, G., & Kaya, A. E. (2018) · Konuralp Tıp Dergisi · doi:10.18521/ktd.462769
Knight, K. M., Moalli, P., & Liang, R. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-97073-8_8
Pelvic floor prolapse/urinary incontinence
Smilen, S. W., Ferrante, K., Glass, D., & Malacarne, D. R. (2018) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119072980.ch10
Gynecologic Disorders in the Older Woman
Meyer, I., Howard, T. F., Smith, H. J., Kim, K. H., & Richter, H. E. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20317-1_50-1
Self-citationFemale pelvic floor disorders : clinical aspects on surgical treatments
Bergman, I. (2020) · Figshare
Ekici, M. A., Çetin, Ç., Kayar, B., Albayrak, Ö., Topçuoğlu, M. A., & Ural, Ü. M. (2020) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.06.028
HEMPTENMACHER, F. C., Ollig, S., Süße, A., & Kieback, D. (2020) · Pelviperineology · doi:10.34057/ppj.2020.39.02.006
Correção de Prolapso Apical Via Vaginal com Tecidos Nativos: Sessenta Meses de Experiência
Cunha, M. D. S., Regalo, A., Rodrigues, M., & Canelas, L. (2020) · Acta Urológica Portuguesa · doi:10.24915/aup.37.1-2.108
Prophylactic Surgery for Benign Gynecologic Pathologies
Arı, S. A., & Akdemir, A. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66853-2_28
Crowle, A., & Harley, C. (2021) · Journal of Womenʼs Health Physical Therapy · doi:10.1097/jwh.0000000000000210
Escobar, C. M., & Pape, D. M. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59058-1_9
SACROSPINOUS LIGAMENT FIXATION FOR APICAL PROLAPSE REPAIR COMPARED TO OTHER VAGINAL PROCEDURES
Ionescu, O., Bacalbaşa, N., Saba, N., & Banceanu, G. (2017) · Romanian Journal of Medical Practice · doi:10.37897/rjmp.2017.4.6
Vaginal mesh hysteropexy: a review
DiCarlo-Meacham, A., & Mazloomdoost, D. (2021) · Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000748
Reflexiones acerca de un posible estatuto del contribuyente ( I)
Sánchez-Cascado, E. D. L. N. (1995) · Carta tributaria. Monografías
General Complications of Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery
Solomon, E. R., & Barber, M. D. (2017) · Current clinical urology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49855-3_4
Self-citationGynecologic Disorders in the Older Woman
Meyer, I., Howard, T. F., Smith, H. J., Kim, K. H., & Richter, H. E. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47771-8_50
Self-citationFrom Open to Minimally Invasive: The Sacrocolpopexy
Fulginiti, A., Borao, F. J., Michalewski, M., & Graebe, R. A. (2022) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.101308
Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Avoiding Complications
Dancz, C. E., & Fullerton, M. E. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17798-4_70
Chughtai, B. I., & Thomas, D. D. M. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59611-2_9
Intraoperative Complications of Vaginal Surgery
Belsante, M., & Zimmern, P. E. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45268-5_19
Pelvic Floor Muscle Training in Prevention and Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Bø, K., & Brækken, I. H. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40862-6_52
Abraham, N., & Goldman, H. B. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28319-3_5
Wang, J., Xu, X., & Xu, J. (2022) · Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · doi:10.1111/jog.15393
Where Are We Now? Urogynecologic Mesh and Present Recommendations
Gee, A. D., Chapman, G. C., & Paraiso, M. F. R. (2022) · Journal of Gynecologic Surgery · doi:10.1089/gyn.2022.0051
Management of Vaginal Vault Prolapse after Hysterectomy
Miheso, J. (2022) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.101385
(2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009128377
Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Avoiding Complications
Dancz, C. E., Tavakoli, A., & Fullerton, M. E. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17002-2_70-2
Biomaterials Interventions for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
Knight, K. M. (2023) · PubMed
Aitbayeva, B., Саятович, И. С., Lushchaeva, E., Toktarbekov, G., & Kenbayeva, K. (2023) · Ginekologia Polska · doi:10.5603/gp.a2023.0002 · Cited by 1
Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Options for Transvaginal Surgical Repair
Torosis, M., & Νitti, V. W. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71112-2_34-1
Wong, T. Y., Muhammad, A., Tan, A. W. K., & Lim, S. K. (2023) · Journal of Gynecologic Surgery · doi:10.1089/gyn.2023.0023
Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Options for Transvaginal Surgical Repair
Torosis, M., & Νitti, V. W. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19598-3_34
Cardaillac, C., Gordeeff, C., Gilbert, A., Degez, M., & Thubert, T. (2023) · EMC - Urología · doi:10.1016/s1761-3310(23)48494-0
Zhu, Y., Zhang, X., Chen, D., Li, G., Shang, S., Li, J., & Yang, J. (2023) · Laparoscopic Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.lers.2023.11.005
Karanasheva, A. K., Dobrokhotova, Y. E., Khlynova, S. A., Александровна, М. Э., & Fuzailova, R. M. (2023) · GYNECOLOGY · doi:10.26442/20795696.2023.4.202412
New Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
力胡玛·阿布来提, 祖. (2024) · Advances in Clinical Medicine · doi:10.12677/acm.2024.143915
Haraki, A. S. E., Shepherd, J. P., Matthews, C. A., & Cadish, L. A. (2024) · Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.04.025
Tratamiento quirúrgico de los prolapsos genitales por vía vaginal
Thubert, T., Degez, M., Cardaillac, C., de Tayrac, R., & Cosson, M. (2024) · EMC - Urología · doi:10.1016/s1761-3310(24)49735-1
Peng, J., Wang, X., Li, J., Zhang, J., Lu, Z., Hu, C., Hua, K., & Chen, Y. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5034332
Dannecker, C., Hampel, C., & Kneist, W. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-3-437-21941-2.00023-5
The Pelvic Floor Disorders Network: Evolution Over Two Decades of Female Pelvic Floor Research
Richter, H. E., Visco, A. G., Brubaker, L. T., Sung, V. W., Nygaard, I. E., Arya, L. A., Menefee, S. A., Zyczynski, H. M., Schaffer, J. I., Rogers, R. G., et al. (2024) · Urogynecology · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000001571
Self-citationCelhay, O., Maire, A., Roman, H., & Merlot, B. (2025) · Urology Video Journal · doi:10.1016/j.urolvj.2025.100330
Noh, N. H. M., Nusee, Z., Ismail, R., & Taha, R. M. (2025) · European Journal of Medical and Health Sciences · doi:10.24018/ejmed.2025.7.2.2269
Metadata
- Authors
- Barber, M. D., Brubaker, L., Burgio, K. L., Richter, H. E., Nygaard, I., Weidner, A. C., Menefee, S. A., Lukacz, E. S., Norton, P., Schaffer, J., Nguyen, J. N., Borello-France, D., Goode, P. S., Jakus-Waldman, S., Spino, C., Warren, L. K., Gantz, M. G., & Meikle, S. F.
- Affiliations
- Cleveland Clinic (US)
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- University of Utah (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Kaiser Permanente (US)
- UC San Diego Health System (US)
- The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
- Department of Physical Therapy, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- University of Michigan (US)
- RTI International (US)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2014-03-12
- Volume
- 311
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1023
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- PMC
- PMC4083455
- OpenAlex
- W2151316027
- Semantic Scholar
- c7221d0dc04ee3d48408809eb8d70e3f407683d0
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13
- FWCI
- 28.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Pfizer
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Boston Scientific Corporation
- Astellas Pharma
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- Office of Research on Women's Health
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U10HD041261, U10HD054136, UG1HD041261, HD054214, U10HD054214, U01HD041249, U10HD054215, UG1HD054215, HD054241, U10HD069006, U01HD069031, HD041267, U10HD041267, U10HD054241, HD069031, HD041261, U10HD041250, UG1HD054214, UG1HD054241, UG1HD041267)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
- Keywords
- apical vaginal prolapse, sacrospinous ligament fixation, uterosacral ligament suspension, pelvic floor muscle training, stress urinary incontinence, midurethral sling, surgical success, pelvic organ prolapse, women's health, surgical outcomes comparison, retreatment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Behavior Therapy, Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Urinary Incontinence, Stress, Urination, Uterine Prolapse, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Suburethral Slings
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
