Cited by 53Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy

Myers, Erinn M., Siff, Lauren, Osmundsen, Blake, Geller, Elizabeth, Matthews, Catherine A.·2015·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Optimal management of the cervix at the time of hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy for primary uterovaginal prolapse is unknown. Our hypothesis was that recurrent prolapse at 1 year would be more likely after a supracervical robotic hysterectomy (SRH) compared with a total robotic hysterectomy (TRH) at the time of robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) for uterovaginal prolapse.Methods This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 83 women who underwent hysterectomy with RSCP over a 24-month period (40 with TRH and 43 with SRH). At 1 year post-procedure, subjects completed validated questionnaires regarding pelvic floor symptoms, sexual function, and global satisfaction, and underwent a pelvic examination to identify mesh exposure and evaluate pelvic floor support.Results Demographics of the two groups were similar, except for a higher mean body mass index in the TRH group (31.9 TRH vs 25.8 SRH kg/m(2), p < 0.001). The rate of recurrent prolapse ≥ stage II was higher for women who underwent SRH compared with TRH (41.9 % vs 20.0 %, p = 0.03; OR 2.8, 95 % CI, 1.07-7.7). However, when this was analyzed as recurrence ≥ hymen, there was no difference between groups (12.5 % TRH vs 18.6 % SRH, p = 0.45). Likewise, there was no difference between groups when a composite measure of success was used (30 out of 40 [75 %] TRH vs 29 out of 43 [67.4 %] SRH, p = 0.45).Conclusions Women who underwent an SRH were 2.8 times more likely to have a recurrent prolapse, ≥ stage II, at 1 year, compared with those who underwent a TRH, but when composite assessment scores were used there was no difference between the groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-014-2551-2

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Myers, E. M., Siff, L., Osmundsen, B., Geller, E., & Matthews, C. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Legacy Health (US)
Corresponding author
Myers, Erinn M.
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2014-11-01
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
585-589
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W2010336714
Cited by
53
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.49
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 › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Keywords
uterovaginal prolapse, prolapse recurrence, subtotal hysterectomy, total hysterectomy, robotic sacrocolpopexy, pelvic floor support, mesh exposure, surgical outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hysterectomy, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Recurrence, Retrospective Studies, Sacrum, Surgical Mesh, Time Factors, Uterine Prolapse, Vagina, Robotic Surgical Procedures

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