Cited by 36Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsUreteral procedures and complications

Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse

Illiano, Ester, Giannitsas, Konstantinos, Costantini, Elisabetta·2020·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes in women who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with or without hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).Methods This was a single-centre prospective study. We included women with symptomatic POP (III-IV stage) who underwent LSC with or without hysterectomy. The preoperative evaluation included a history, clinical examination and urodynamic test; all patients completed FSFI, UDI-6 and IIQ-7 questionnaires. They were followed up at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery and then annually thereafter with the same preoperative flow chart. At the last visit, they also completed the PGI-I questionnaire.Results Between 2012 and 2016, a total of 136 patients with POP were included (82 in the LSC with hysterectomy group and 54 in the hysteropexy group). At a median follow-up of 65.3 months (36-84 months), there were improvements in the anatomical and functional outcomes of both groups without differences between the two approaches. The apical success rate was 100% in all women, without recurrence in either group; the anterior and posterior success rates of hysterectomy were higher than those of uterine preservation.Conclusion This study showed that there were no differences in the anatomical and functional outcomes between LSC with or without hysterectomy for POP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-020-04260-1

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Illiano et al. found that the mesh exposure rate was higher in the hysterectomy group than in the uterine preservation group (6/82, 7.3% vs 2/54, 3.7%).

    “Illiano et al. compared the outcomes in women who underwent LSC with or without hysterectomy with a median follow-up of 65.3 months, and they found that the anterior and posterior success rates of the hysterectomy group were higher than those of the uterine preservation group and that the mesh exposure rate was higher in the hysterectomy group (6 out of 82, 7.3% vs 2 out of 54, 3.7%) [19].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Illiano, E., Giannitsas, K., & Costantini, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Perugia (IT)
  • General University Hospital of Patras (GR)
Corresponding author
Illiano, Ester
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2020-03-05
Volume
31
Issue
10
Pages
2069-2074
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W3010459924
Cited by
36
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4
FWCI
3.95
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 › Ureteral procedures and complications
Keywords
laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, hysterectomy, hysteropexy, pelvic organ prolapse, uterine preservation, functional outcome, anatomical outcomes, sexual function, quality of life
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Laparoscopy, Prospective Studies, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Treatment Outcome, 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