Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 921

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Comprehensive Review

Nygaard, Ingrid E., McCreery, Rebecca, Brubaker, Linda, Connolly, AnnaMarie, Cundiff, Geoff, Weber, Anne M., Zyczynski, Halina·2004·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To summarize published data about abdominal sacrocolpopexy and to highlight areas about which data are lacking. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE using Ovid and PubMed, from January,1966 to January, 2004, using search terms "sacropexy," "sacrocolpopexy," "sacral colpopexy," "colpopexy," "sacropexy," "colposacropexy," "abdominal sacrocolpopexy" "pelvic organ prolapse and surgery," and "vaginal vault prolapse or surgery" and included articles with English-language abstracts. We examined reference lists of published articles to identify other articles not found on the electronic search. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We examined all studies identified in our search that provided any outcome data on sacrocolpopexy. Because of the substantial heterogeneity of outcome measures and follow-up intervals in case studies, we did not apply meta-analytic techniques to the data. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Follow-up duration for most studies ranged from 6 months to 3 years. The success rate, when defined as lack of apical prolapse postoperatively, ranged from 78-100% and when defined as no postoperative prolapse, from 58-100%. The median reoperation rates for pelvic organ prolapse and for stress urinary incontinence in the studies that reported these outcomes were 4.4% (range 0-18.2%) and 4.9% (range 1.2% to 30.9%), respectively. The overall rate of mesh erosion was 3.4% (70 of 2,178). Some reports found more mesh erosions when concomitant total hysterectomy was done, whereas other reports did not. There were no data to either support or refute the contentions that concomitant culdoplasty or paravaginal repair decreased the risk of failure. Most authors recommended burying the graft under the peritoneum to attempt to decrease the risk of bowel obstruction; despite this, the median rate (when reported) of small bowel obstruction requiring surgery was 1.1% (range 0.6% to 8.6%). Few studies rigorously assessed pelvic symptoms, bowel function, or sexual function. CONCLUSION: Sacrocolpopexy is a reliable procedure that effectively and consistently resolves vaginal vault prolapse. Patients should be counseled about the low, but present risk, of reoperation for prolapse, stress incontinence, and complications. Prospective trials are needed to understand the effect of sacrocolpopexy on functional outcomes.

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 · 10.1097/01.aog.0000139514.90897.07

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 921

Metadata

Authors
Nygaard, I. E., McCreery, R., Brubaker, L., Connolly, A., Cundiff, G., Weber, A. M., & Zyczynski, H.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2004-10
Volume
104
Issue
4
Pages
805-823
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2328973603
Cited by
921
References
3
FWCI
15.45
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: Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Comprehensive Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.aog.0000139514.90897.07
The paper
Nygaard, I. E., McCreery, R., Brubaker, L., Connolly, A., Cundiff, G., Weber, A. M., & Zyczynski, H. (2004). Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Comprehensive Review. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000139514.90897.07

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.