The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Risk of Primary Uterine and Cervical Cancer After Hysteropexy
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the rate of subsequent uterine/cervical cancer after hysteropexy compared with hysterectomy with apical prolapse repair. Methods: The study used a retrospective cohort of women with uterovaginal prolapse using the Cerner Health Facts database between 2010 and 2018. We identified sacrospinous or uterosacral ligament suspensions or sacral colpopexy/hysteropexy and excluded those with previous hysterectomy. We used the International Classification of Diseases , Ninth Revision and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for endometrial cancer/hyperplasia and cervical cancer and then reviewed each case, excluding those whose cancer existed at time of prolapse repair. Given that 0 cancer cases were identified, we used Wilson, Jeffreys, Agresti-Coull, Clopper-Pearson, and Rule of 3 to define 95% confidence intervals to estimate the highest possible rate of cancer in each cohort. Results: A total of 8,927 patients underwent apical prolapse surgery. Of 4,510 with uterovaginal prolapse, 755 (16.7%) underwent hysteropexy. Seventy one with hysterectomy and 5 with hysteropexy had codes for subsequent gynecologic cancer but were excluded on further review. This left 0 gynecologic cancer cases with the largest 95% confidence interval of 0%–0.61% for hysteropexy versus 0%–0.13% for hysterectomy ( P > 0.05). The hysteropexy cohort was older (62.6 years vs 57.3 years, P < 0.0001), more likely to have public insurance (51.0% vs 37.9%, P < 0.0001), and less likely to smoke (4.5% vs 7.6%, P = 0.0026). Median follow-up was longer after hysteropexy (1,480 days vs 1,164 days, P < 0.0009). Conclusions: We can say with 95% certainty that uterine or cervical cancer will develop after hysteropexy in fewer than 0.61% of women, which was not different if hysterectomy was performed. This should be included in preoperative counseling for hysteropexy. Studying longer follow-up after hysteropexy may capture more cases of subsequent cancer development.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Study generalizability to patients who are current smokers or have no prior vaginal birth is limited.
“study generalizability to patients with these factors should be done with caution.65”
From Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a prospective cohort study (2025) · cites this paper as [65]
Citations
Cites
Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion
Brown, L. D., Cai, T., & Dasgupta, A. (2001) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009213286 · Cited by 3,746
If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators
Hanley, J. A. (1983) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.249.13.1743 · Cited by 1,215
If Nothing Goes Wrong, Is Everything All Right?
Hanley, J. A. (1983) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330370053031 · Cited by 1,052
Detollenaere, R. J., den Boon, J., Stekelenburg, J., IntHout, J., Vierhout, M. E., Kluivers, K. B., & van Eijndhoven, H. W. F. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h3717 · Cited by 194
Frick, A. C., Walters, M. D., Larkin, K., & Barber, M. D. (2010) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.077 · Cited by 152
Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study
Gutman, R. E., Rardin, C. R., Sokol, E. R., Matthews, C. A., Park, A. J., Iglesia, C. B., Geoffrion, R., Sokol, A. I., Karram, M. M., Cundiff, G. W., et al. (2016) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035 · Cited by 108
Rahmanou, P., Price, N., & Jackson, S. R. (2015) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2761-2 · Cited by 62
Meriwether, K., Balk, E., Antosh, D., Olivera, C., Kim-Fine, S., Murphy, M., Grimes, C., Sleemi, A., Singh, R., Dieter, A., et al. (2019) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-019-03876-2 · Cited by 46
Ackenbom, M. F., Giugale, L. E., Wang, Y., et al. (2016) · Urogynecology · doi:10.1097/spv.0000000000000283 · Cited by 38
Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years’ experience
Jefferis, H., Price, N., & Jackson, S. (2017) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-016-3257-4 · Cited by 38
Clinical outcomes in women undergoing laparoscopic hysteropexy: A systematic review
Nair, R., Nikolopoulos, K. I., & Claydon, L. S. (2016) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.11.019 · Cited by 34
Hysteropexy: an Option for the Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Bradley, S., Gutman, R. E., & Richter, L. A. (2018) · Current Urology Reports · doi:10.1007/s11934-018-0765-4 · Cited by 29
Adverse Events After Concurrent Procedures for Gynecologic Malignancies and Pelvic Floor Disorders
Bretschneider, C. E., Sheyn, D. D., Mahajan, S. T., et al. (2018) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002731 · Cited by 23
Estimating the Risk of a Rare But Plausible Complication That Has Not Occurred After n Trials
Ho, A. M. ‐., Ho, A. K., Mizubuti, G. B., et al. (2018) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000003542 · Cited by 9
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Porcari, I., Zorzato, P. C., Bosco, M., Garzon, S., Magni, F., Salvatore, S., Franchi, M. P., & Uccella, S. (2024) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.15343 · Cited by 28
Brennand, E. A., Scime, N. V., Huang, B., Edwards, A. D., Kim-Fine, S., Hall, J., Birch, C., Robert, M., & Carter Ramirez, A. (2025) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2024.10.021 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Kurian, R., Kirchhoff-Rowald, A., Sahil, S., Cheng, A.-L., Wang, X., Shepherd, J. P., & Sutkin, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
- Quinnipiac University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kurian, Rebecca
- Kirchhoff-Rowald, Amelia
- Sahil, Suman
- Cheng, An-Lin
- Wang, Xi
- Sutkin, Gary
- Venue
- Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
- Published
- 2021-03
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e493-e496
- ISSN
- 2151-8378 (ISSN-L)
- 2154-4212
- OpenAlex
- W3129519118
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 1.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Urogynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Keywords
- hysteropexy, hysterectomy, uterovaginal prolapse, uterine cancer, cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, sacrospinous ligament suspension, uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrocolpopexy, cancer risk, preoperative counseling, pelvic organ prolapse surgery, cancer incidence estimation
- MeSH terms
- Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Ligaments, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Uterine Prolapse, Databases, Factual
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
