Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Transvaginal repair of vault prolapse: A review

SZE, E, KARRAM, M·1997·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide a critical assessment of the published literature on transvaginal reconstructive techniques used to suspend a prolapsed vaginal vault. DATA SOURCE: A Medline data base search and a bibliographic review of the relevant articles were conducted to identify all English-language articles on repair of vaginal vault prolapse. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Our literature search identified 34 articles published in peer-review journals and one article reported in another format, describing five different techniques. TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: The size of each study population, modifications of the original surgical technique, complications, and results were tabulated and summarized for each surgical approach. Only sacrospinous ligament vaginal vault suspension and endopelvic fascia vaginal vault fixation had a sufficient number of cases to allow an informative evaluation of their effectiveness in managing vaginal vault prolapse. Of the 1229 patients who had undergone sacrospinous ligament suspension, 1062 were available for varying periods of follow-up; 193 (18%) of these developed recurrent pelvic relaxation--including 32 vaginal vault eversions, 81 anterior vaginal wall defects, 24 posterior vaginal wall prolapses, and 56 support defects at unspecified or multiple sites. Of the 367 patients who had undergone endopelvic fascia vaginal vault fixation, 322 were available for follow-up ranging from 1 to 12 years; 34 (11%) of these patients developed recurrent pelvic relaxation including nine vaginal vault prolapses, two anterior vaginal wall defects, 11 posterior vaginal wall relaxations, and 12 support defects at unspecified or multiple sites. CONCLUSION: Published experience suggests that sacrospinous ligament suspension and endopelvic fascia fixation are effective in managing vaginal vault prolapse. Because of study limitations--including an absence of standardized outcome evaluation, relatively short follow-up periods, a substantial number of patients lost to follow-up, concomitant surgical procedures, and failure to assess visceral and sexual functions--the true efficacy of these two procedures remains inconclusive.

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 · 10.1016/s0029-7844(96)00337-7

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.

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

Cited by

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
SZE, E., & KARRAM, M.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
1997-03
Volume
89
Issue
3
Pages
466-475
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998918881
Cited by
283
References
0
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Transvaginal repair of vault prolapse: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0029-7844(96)00337-7
The paper
SZE, E., & KARRAM, M. (1997). Transvaginal repair of vault prolapse: A review. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(96)00337-7

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.