Cited by 30Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsUreteral procedures and complications

Vaginal Prolapse Recurrence After Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Normal-Weight Compared With Overweight and Obese Women

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare recurrent prolapse after vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension in normal-weight compared with overweight or obese women. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of the risk of recurrent prolapse after uterosacral ligament suspension in normal-weight compared with overweight or obese women at our institution from December 1, 1996, through June 30, 2011. Women with fewer than 6 months of follow-up and those with a prior vault suspension were excluded. Our primary outcome was a composite measure defined as anterior, posterior, or apical prolapse recurrence extending beyond the hymen or repeat treatment for prolapse with surgery or a pessary in women undergoing uterosacral ligament suspension and other vaginal repairs. RESULTS: We included 219 participants (81 [37%] normal-weight and 138 [63%] overweight or obese women). There was no difference in median follow-up (14 months; interquartile range 8.5-26.5 months] in the normal-weight compared with 13 months [interquartile range 9.0-29.0 months] in the overweight or obese women, P=.98). Prolapse recurred in 22.2% (n=18) of the normal-weight group and 26.1% (n=36) of the overweight or obese group (P=.52). Surgery for recurrent prolapse was performed in 16.0% (n=13) of the normal-weight women and in 14.5% (n=20) of the overweight or obese women (P=.76). The most common site of recurrence was the anterior compartment (17.4% [n=38]) compared with the apical compartment (8.7% [n=19]) or posterior compartment (6.8% [n=15]) with no significant difference between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: After uterosacral ligament suspension, overweight or obese women have similar prolapse recurrence compared with normal-weight women. Anterior prolapse is the most common site of recurrence after uterosacral ligament suspension.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aog.0b013e3182839eeb

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Edenfield, A. L., Amundsen, C. L., Weidner, A. C., Wu, J. M., George, A., & Siddiqui, N. Y.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2013-03
Volume
121
Issue
3
Pages
554-559
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979367272
Cited by
30
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (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
vaginal prolapse, uterosacral ligament suspension, prolapse recurrence, obesity, overweight, body weight, cystocele, apical prolapse, pelvic organ prolapse surgery
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Ligaments, Middle Aged, Obesity, Recurrence, Retrospective Studies, Uterine Prolapse, Overweight, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

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