Cited by 17Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsHernia repair and management

Sacrospinous ligament fixation: medium and long-term anatomical results, functional and quality of life results

Open access
Favre-Inhofer, Angeline, Carbonnel, Marie, Murtada, Rouba, Revaux, Aurélie, Asmar, Jennifer, Ayoubi, Jean-Marc·2021·BMC Women's Health

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the medium and long-term anatomical results of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SLF) and its impact on quality of life (QoL). Methods: We conducted a retrospective and observational single centre study. Fifty-nine patients were interviewed using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire and underwent physical examination using POP-Q several years after SLF. Primary outcome was the comparison of anatomic results of SLF at medium-term (group 1: 1–5 years after surgery) and long-term (group 2: more than 5 years after surgery). The secondary outcome was QoL evaluation. Results: The overall recurrence and complication rates were respectively 22% and 10%, with no significant differences between groups 1 and 2. The recurrence rate was similar in both groups [twelve (35%) in group 1 and nine (20%) in group 2, p = 0.09]. Two patients (12%) in the recurrence and none in the no recurrence group had clinical symptoms (p = 0.08). Two patients (12%) in the recurrence and one patient (2%) in the no-recurrence group had a significant impact on their quality of life (p = 0.12). Conclusion: This study showed sustainable anatomic and functional results of SLF in medium and long-term analysis with overall low morbidity.

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 · 10.1186/s12905-021-01195-7

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The recurrence rate in this study is lower than rates of 42%, 35%, and 27% reported in other studies with longer follow-up.

    “However, it is lower than that found in other studies [16,17,19] where rates of 42%, 35%, and 27% were reported.”

    From Recurrence Rate and Risk Factors for Apical Prolapse After Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation: A Prospective Cohort Study (2026) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Discussion reports recurrence rates of 42% and 27% in other studies, but does not report 35% for another study. The Results give 35% for a subgroup of this paper’s own patients. The Discussion also says most studies had shorter observation periods, so it does not establish that all three cited rates came from studies with longer follow-up. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sacrospinous ligament fixation is a safe, low-cost, and effective procedure in the management of apical prolapse.

    “Studies have shown sacrospinous ligament fixation as a safe, low-cost, and effective procedure in the management of apical prolapse [9,14-17].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [4]Ko-Kivok-Yun P, Monroziès X, Ayoubi J-M, Elghaoui A, Jm R. Sacro-spino-fixation vaginale ou intervention de Richter: expérience d’une équipe chirurgicale à propos de 54 cas. 1995. 8677405
  2. [15]de Tayrac R Deval B Fernandez H Marès P Mapi Research Institute Validation linguistique en français des versions courtes des questionnaires de symptômes (PFDI-20) et de qualité de vie (PFIQ-7) chez les patientes présentant un trouble de la statique pelvienne J Gynécologie Obs Biol la Reprod. 2007 36 8 738 748 10.1016/j.jgyn.2007.08.002 17881153 · DOI
  3. [21]Maher C Feiner B Baessler K Christmann-Schmid C Haya N Brown J Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016 10 CD012376 27696355 PMC6457970

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Favre-Inhofer, A., Carbonnel, M., Murtada, R., Revaux, A., Asmar, J., & Ayoubi, J.-M.
Affiliations
  • Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR)
  • Hôpital Foch (FR)
Venue
BMC Women's Health
Published
2021-02-12
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
66-66
ISSN
1472-6874 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3126756773
Cited by
17
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Women s Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
Keywords
sacrospinous ligament fixation, pelvic organ prolapse, pelvic floor reconstruction, long-term outcomes, quality of life, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, POP-Q, postoperative complications
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Ligaments, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Vagina, 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