Cited by 58Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsGynecological conditions and treatments

Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 1- to 4-year follow-up of women postoperatively

Rahmanou, Philip, White, B., Price, N., Jackson, S.·2014·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Uterine conserving re-suspension surgery has become more popular in recent years. Such surgery may allow preservation of fertility in younger women, but may also have the added benefit of augmenting weak connective tissue and possibly providing stronger apical support than the conventional hysterectomy. Our goal was to evaluate the 1- to 4-year outcome of laparoscopic hysteropexy for the surgical management of uterine prolapse.Methods This study was a prospective observational study of 182 consecutive women who underwent laparoscopic hysteropexy, with or without additional vaginal repair, from the beginning of 2007 until the end of 2010. Women were invited to attend a dedicated clinic for interview and their prolapse was assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire for Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS) and the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) scale. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare pre-operative with postoperative data. Complications and women's satisfaction were also noted.Results One hundred and forty women agreed to participate; the mean interval from operation was 2.1 years (range 1-4.4). Eighty-nine percent of women felt that their prolapse is "very much" or "much" better using PGI-I subjective outcome measure. There was significant improvement for all parameters of ICIQ-VS and POP-Q scoring post-surgery (p < 0.001). Six women (4 %) had further apical prolapse; of these, 3 underwent further prolapse surgery. None of the participants had any mesh exposure. Ninety two percent of participants would recommend the operation.Conclusions Laparoscopic hysteropexy is a safe and effective treatment. The 1- to 4-year outcome suggests high patient satisfaction and low rates of apical prolapse recurrence. Longer term follow-up and randomized controlled studies are required.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-013-2209-5

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 58

Authors
Rahmanou, P., White, B., Price, N., & Jackson, S.
Affiliations
John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Rahmanou, Philip
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2013-11-06
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
131-138
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W2056897658
Cited by
58
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
uterine prolapse, long-term surgical outcomes, vaginal symptoms, patient satisfaction, POP-Q, mesh exposure, postoperative complications
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Follow-Up Studies, United Kingdom, Humans, Middle Aged, Laparoscopy, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

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