Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: A short version Cochrane review

Open access
Maher, C., Baessler, K., Glazener, C.M.A., Adams, E.J., Hagen, S.·2008·Neurourology and Urodynamics

Abstract

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated with prolapse. Objectives: To determine the effects of the many different surgeries in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 3 May 2006)and reference lists of relevant articles.We also contacted researchers in the field. Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse. Data collection and analysis: Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Six investigators were contacted for additional information with five responding. Main results: Twenty two randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 2368 women.Abdominal sacral colpopexy was better than vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy in terms of a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77) and less dyspareunia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86), but the trend towards a lower re‐operation rate for prolapse following abdominal sacrocolpopexy was not statistically significant (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11). However, the vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy was quicker and cheaper to perform and women had an earlier return to activities of daily living. The data were too few to evaluate other clinical outcomes and adverse events. The three trials contributing to this comparison were clinically heterogeneous. For the anterior vaginal wall prolapse, standard anterior repair was associated with more recurrent cystoceles than when supplemented by polyglactin mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.14), but data on morbidity, other clinical outcomes and for other mesh or graft materials were too few for reliable comparisons. For posterior vaginal wall prolapse, the vaginal approach was associated with a lower rate of recurrent rectocele and/or enterocele than the transanal approach (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.64), although there was a higher blood loss and postoperative narcotic use. However, data on the effect of surgery on bowel symptoms and the use of polyglactin mesh inlay or porcine small intestine graft inlay on the risk of recurrent rectocele were insufficient for meta‐analysis.Meta‐analysis on the impact of pelvic organ prolapse surgery on continence issues was limited and inconclusive, although about 10% of women developed new urinary symptoms after surgery. Although the addition of tension‐free vaginal tape to endopelvic fascia plication (RR 5.5, 95% CI 1.36 to 22.32) and Burch colposuspension to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.24) were followed by a lower risk of women developing new postoperative stress incontinence, but other outcomes, particularly economic, remain to be evaluated. Authors' conclusions: Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse and dyspareunia than the vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair may reduce the risk of recurrent cystocele. Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management of rectoceles in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The addition of a continence procedure to a prolapse repair operation may reduce the incidence of postoperative urinary incontinence but this benefit needs to be balanced against possible differences in costs and adverse effects. Adequately powered randomised controlled clinical trials are urgently needed. Neurourol. Urodynam. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/nau.20542

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Maher, C., Baessler, K., Glazener, C. M. A., Adams, E. J., & Hagen, S.
Venue
Neurourology and Urodynamics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-12-18
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
3-12
ISSN
  • 0733-2467 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6777
OpenAlex
W1994660309
Cited by
249
References
1
FWCI
16.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: A short version Cochrane review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/nau.20542
The paper
Maher, C., Baessler, K., Glazener, C. M. A., Adams, E. J., & Hagen, S. (2008). Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: A short version Cochrane review. Neurourology and Urodynamics. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20542

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.