{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,26]],"date-time":"2026-10-26T22:57:42Z","timestamp":1793055462871,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":23,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,7,26]],"date-time":"2022-07-26T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1658793600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,7,26]],"date-time":"2022-07-26T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1658793600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100001774","name":"University of Sydney","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100001774","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"crossref"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Int Urogynecol J"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Introduction and hypothesis<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Our study was aimed at comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture-based hysteropexy (SutureH) versus sacral hysteropexy using mesh (MeshH) for bothersome uterine prolapse. Our hypothesis is that MeshH is more successful and provides better uterine support than SutureH.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>A retrospective cohort study of 228 consecutive women who underwent re-suspension of the uterus using uterosacral ligaments (SutureH <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>=97) or a \u201cU-shaped\u201d mesh from the sacral promontory (MeshH, <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>=132). Surgery was performed by laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy. Subjects were assessed at baseline, 1 year, and beyond 1 year. The null hypothesis, that SutureH and MeshH have similar success, was based on a composite outcome (\u201ccomposite success\u201d), and that they provide the same level of uterine support, was based on POP-Q point C at 1 year. \u201cComposite success\u201d was defined as: POP-Q point C above the hymen; absence of a vaginal bulge; no repeat uterine prolapse surgery or pessary placement. Other outcomes included improvement in symptomology using Patient Global Impression of Improvement, POP-Q point C change and complications.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Follow-up data were available for 191 out of 228 women. \u201cComposite success\u201d was not significantly different between MeshH and SutureH groups (81.7% vs 84.5%, <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>=0.616). MeshH provided better elevation of the uterus than SutureH (point C change: \u22127.38cm vs \u22126.99cm; <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>&lt;0.001). Similar symptom improvement and low complications occurred in both groups.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture hysteropexy and mesh sacral hysteropexy provide women with minimally invasive, durable surgical options for uterine preservation. \u201cComposite success\u201d was similar in the two groups, but MeshH provided better uterine support than SutureH. However, SutureH gives women an effective mesh-free option.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-022-05283-6","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,7,26]],"date-time":"2022-07-26T05:02:26Z","timestamp":1658811746000},"page":"105-113","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["Laparoscopic and robot-assisted suture versus mesh hysteropexy: a retrospective comparison"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"34","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-0320-2620","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Deepa","family":"Gopinath","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Chin","family":"Yong","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sam","family":"Harding-Forrester","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Felix","family":"McIntyre","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Dean","family":"McKenzie","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Marcus","family":"Carey","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,7,26]]},"reference":[{"issue":"5","key":"5283_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1096","DOI":"10.1097\/aog.0b013e3181f73729","volume":"116","author":"FJ Smith","year":"2010","unstructured":"Smith FJ, Holman CDAJ, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096\u2013100. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/aog.0b013e3181f73729.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"186","key":"5283_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1160","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2002.123819","volume":"6","author":"SL Hendrix","year":"2002","unstructured":"Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women\u2019s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;6(186):1160\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1067\/mob.2002.123819.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"89","key":"5283_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"501","DOI":"10.1016\/s0029-7844(97)00058-6","volume":"4","author":"AL Olsen","year":"1997","unstructured":"Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;4(89):501\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s0029-7844(97)00058-6.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"28","key":"5283_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"420","DOI":"10.1097\/gco.0000000000000312","volume":"5","author":"JOL DeLancey","year":"2016","unstructured":"DeLancey JOL. What is new in the functional anatomy of the pelvic organ prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5(28):420\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/gco.0000000000000312.","journal-title":"Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"9","key":"5283_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1123","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-010-1147-8","volume":"21","author":"V Dzung","year":"2010","unstructured":"Dzung V, Haylen BT, Tse K, Farnsworth A. Surgical anatomy of the uterosacral ligament. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(9):1123\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-010-1147-8.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"6","key":"5283_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"873","DOI":"10.1016\/s0029-7844(01)01346-1","volume":"97","author":"JL Buller","year":"2001","unstructured":"Buller JL, Thompson JR, Cundiff GW, Krueger SL, Sch\u00f6n YMA, Bent AE. Uterosacral ligament: description of anatomic relationships to optimize surgical safety. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(6):873\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s0029-7844(01)01346-1.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"6","key":"5283_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"664.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2007.08.064","volume":"197","author":"RE Blandon","year":"2007","unstructured":"Blandon RE, Bharucha AE, Melton 3rd LJ, et al. Incidence of pelvic floor repair after hysterectomy: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):664.e1\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2007.08.064.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"209","key":"5283_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2013.08.003","volume":"470","author":"NB Korbly","year":"2013","unstructured":"Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;470(209):e1\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2013.08.003.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"2","key":"5283_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"129","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2018.01.018","volume":"219","author":"KV Meriwether","year":"2018","unstructured":"Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129\u2013146.e2. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2018.01.018.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"1","key":"5283_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"17","DOI":"10.1111\/tog.12220","volume":"18","author":"H Jefferis","year":"2016","unstructured":"Jefferis H, Jackson SR, Price N. Management of uterine prolapse: is hysterectomy necessary? Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;18(1):17\u201323. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/tog.12220.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynaecol"},{"issue":"6","key":"5283_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1010","DOI":"10.1097\/00006250-200106000-00027","volume":"97","author":"CF Maher","year":"2001","unstructured":"Maher CF, Carey MP, Murray CJ. Laparoscopic suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(6):1010\u20134. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/00006250-200106000-00027.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"4","key":"5283_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"378","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-005-0019-0","volume":"17","author":"HG Krause","year":"2006","unstructured":"Krause HG, Goh JTW, Sloane K, Higgs P, Carey MP. Laparoscopic sacral suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17(4):378\u201381. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-005-0019-0.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"2","key":"5283_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"244","DOI":"10.1111\/ajo.13104","volume":"60","author":"S Daniels","year":"2020","unstructured":"Daniels S, Robson D, Palacz M, Howell S, Nguyen T, Behnia-Willison F. Success rates and outcomes of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60(2):244\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/ajo.13104.","journal-title":"Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol"},{"issue":"7","key":"5283_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1957","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-021-04932-6","volume":"33","author":"ML Izett-Kay","year":"2022","unstructured":"Izett-Kay ML, Rahmanou P, Cartwright RJ, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(7):1957\u201365. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-021-04932-6.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"key":"5283_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"71","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2016.11.019","volume":"208","author":"R Nair","year":"2017","unstructured":"Nair R, Nikolopoulos KI, Claydon LS. Clinical outcomes in women undergoing laparoscopic hysteropexy: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;208:71\u201380. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2016.11.019.","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"key":"5283_CR16","unstructured":"Australia, Parliment,\u00a0 Senate, Community Affairs References Committee, Siewert R.\u00a0Number of women in Australia who have had transvaginal mesh implants and related matters. Community Affairs References Committee, Canberra, ACT; 2018. Available at: https:\/\/www.tga.gov.au\/australian-government-response-senate-community-affairs-references-committee-report. Accessed\u00a015 Jan 2022."},{"key":"5283_CR17","unstructured":"Secondary Care Team, NHS Digital. Retrospective review of surgery for urogynaecological prolapse and stress urinary incontinence using tape or mesh: hospital episode statistics (HES), experimental statistics, April 2008 \u2013 March 2017. London: NHS England; 2018. Available at: https:\/\/digital.nhs.uk\/data-and-information\/publications\/statistical\/mesh\/apr08-mar17\/retrospective-review-of-surgery-for-vaginal-prolapse-and-stress-urinary-incontinence-using-tape-or-mesh-copy. Accessed\u00a015 Jan 2022."},{"issue":"2","key":"5283_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"172","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2012.10.014","volume":"20","author":"ND Bedford","year":"2013","unstructured":"Bedford ND, Seman EI, O\u2019Shea RT, Keirse MJ. Effect of uterine preservation on outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):172\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jmig.2012.10.014.","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"54","key":"5283_CR19","first-page":"273","volume":"5","author":"CR Rardin","year":"2009","unstructured":"Rardin CR, Erekson EA, Sung VW, Ward RM, Myers DL. Uterosacral colpopexy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of laparoscopic and vaginal approaches. J Reprod Med. 2009;5(54):273\u201380.","journal-title":"J Reprod Med"},{"issue":"12","key":"5283_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2595","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-020-04396-0","volume":"31","author":"ML Izett-Kay","year":"2020","unstructured":"Izett-Kay ML, Dana A, Kupelian AS, et al. Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(12):2595\u2013602. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-020-04396-0.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"7","key":"5283_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"654","DOI":"10.1002\/nau.22641","volume":"34","author":"G Meritxell","year":"2015","unstructured":"Meritxell G, Maria P, Eduardo B, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(7):654\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/nau.22641.","journal-title":"Neurourol Urodyn"},{"issue":"11","key":"5283_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1687","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-015-2761-2","volume":"26","author":"P Rahmanou","year":"2015","unstructured":"Rahmanou PR, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1687\u201394. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-015-2761-2.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"4","key":"5283_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"451","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-013-2307-4","volume":"25","author":"HP Dietz","year":"2014","unstructured":"Dietz HP, Mann KP. What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):451\u20135. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-013-2307-4.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"}],"container-title":["International Urogynecology Journal"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00192-022-05283-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00192-022-05283-6\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00192-022-05283-6.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,1,11]],"date-time":"2023-01-11T13:04:22Z","timestamp":1673442262000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s00192-022-05283-6"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,7,26]]},"references-count":23,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023,1]]}},"alternative-id":["5283"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-022-05283-6","relation":{},"ISSN":["0937-3462","1433-3023"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0937-3462","type":"print"},{"value":"1433-3023","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,7,26]]},"assertion":[{"value":"22 March 2022","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"11 June 2022","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"26 July 2022","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Deepa Gopinath, Chin Yong, Sam Harding-Forrester, Felix McIntyre, Dean McKenzie have no conflicts of interest. Marcus Carey is the inventor of the surgical pelvic organ pessary. He has no commercial or financial interests in the distribution of this device.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflicts of interest"}}]}}