{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,12]],"date-time":"2026-08-12T13:53:43Z","timestamp":1786542823820,"version":"build-2736575974"},"reference-count":30,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"9","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,13]],"date-time":"2023-04-13T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1681344000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,13]],"date-time":"2023-04-13T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1681344000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Int Urogynecol J"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023,9]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Introduction and hypothesis<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Sacrocolpopexy was traditionally performed for post-hysterectomy prolapse or during concurrent hysterectomy. Sacrocolpopexy outcome with uterine preservation is poorly investigated. This study compared outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>This retrospective study compared data of patients with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with uterine preservation with the data of controls who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy. We analyzed composite failure in uterine preservation versus concurrent supracervical hysterectomy (primary objective) and evaluated factors associated with the primary outcome of composite failure after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with preservation or supracervical hysterectomy (secondary objective). Composite failure was defined as subjective bulge symptoms, reoperation, or anatomical prolapse. Cox models indicated time to composite failure as an endpoint.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Of 274 patients, 232 underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy and 42 underwent laparoscopic uterine preservation. After propensity score matching (ratio: 2, for the laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy group), 56 patients (24.1%) were in the supracervical hysterectomy group and 28 (66.7%) in the uterine preservation group. All patients underwent 24\u00a0months of follow-up. The composite failure rates were 10.7% for supracervical hysterectomy and 3.6% for preservation (<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>=0.87). The mean estimated blood loss was 10\u00a0ml (preservation, 10.0\u00a0ml [5.0\u201310.0] versus supracervical hysterectomy, 10.0\u00a0ml [10.0\u201315.0]; <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>=0.007). In the Cox proportional hazards model, higher preoperative body mass index and the point Ba increased composite failure risk.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Although not statistically significant, composite failure in the two techniques is likely clinically meaningful.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-023-05534-0","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,13]],"date-time":"2023-04-13T13:17:03Z","timestamp":1681391823000},"page":"2217-2224","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":9,"title":["Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"34","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-4793-5845","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Hirotaka","family":"Sato","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Shota","family":"Otsuka","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Hirokazu","family":"Abe","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sachiyuki","family":"Tsukada","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,13]]},"reference":[{"key":"5534_CR1","unstructured":"Study Guide from StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 23 Oct 2020."},{"key":"5534_CR2","unstructured":"Hospital intelligence agency. Pages of DPC statistics. http:\/\/hospia.jp\/dpc. Accessed 8 August 2022."},{"key":"5534_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"171","DOI":"10.23736\/S0026-4784.16.04011-9","volume":"69","author":"MF Wilkins","year":"2017","unstructured":"Wilkins MF, Wu JM. Lifetime risk of surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69:171\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.23736\/S0026-4784.16.04011-9.","journal-title":"Minerva Ginecol"},{"key":"5534_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"470.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2013.08.003,PMID23921090","volume":"209","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;209:470.e1\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2013.08.003,PMID23921090.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"5534_CR5","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;219:129\u2013146.e2. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2018.01.018.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"5534_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"654","DOI":"10.1002\/nau.22641","volume":"34","author":"M Gracia","year":"2015","unstructured":"Gracia M, Perell\u00f3 M, Bataller E, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:654\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/nau.22641.","journal-title":"Neurourol Urodyn"},{"key":"5534_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-021-04865-0","volume":"33","author":"G Campagna","year":"2022","unstructured":"Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, et al. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33:359\u201368. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-021-04865-0.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"key":"5534_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"72","DOI":"10.1186\/s12905-021-01208-5","volume":"21","author":"D Gagyor","year":"2021","unstructured":"Gagyor D, Kalis V, Smazinka M, Rusavy Z, Pilka R, Ismail KM. Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study). BMC Womens Health. 2021;21:72. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12905-021-01208-5.","journal-title":"BMC Womens Health"},{"key":"5534_CR9","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":"5534_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"128","DOI":"10.1080\/01443615.2020.1724914","volume":"41","author":"H Sato","year":"2021","unstructured":"Sato H, Abe H, Ikeda A, Miyagawa T, Sato K. Complications and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;41:128\u201332. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01443615.2020.1724914.","journal-title":"J Obstet Gynaecol"},{"key":"5534_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1128","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jtcvs.2007.07.021","volume":"134","author":"PC Austin","year":"2007","unstructured":"Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:1128\u201335.","journal-title":"J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg"},{"key":"5534_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"94","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2019.12.029","volume":"245","author":"O Gluck","year":"2020","unstructured":"Gluck O, Blaganje M, Veit-Rubin N, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive literature review on current practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;245:94\u2013101. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2019.12.029.","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"key":"5534_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"373","DOI":"10.1016\/0021-9681(87)90171-8","volume":"40","author":"ME Charlson","year":"1987","unstructured":"Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373\u201383. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/0021-9681(87)90171-8.","journal-title":"J Chronic Dis"},{"key":"5534_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1039","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-012-1962-1","volume":"24","author":"M Yoshida","year":"2013","unstructured":"Yoshida M, Murayama R, Ota E, Nakata M, Kozuma S, Homma Y. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1039\u201346. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-012-1962-1.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"key":"5534_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"96","DOI":"10.1016\/j.gmit.2017.02.001","volume":"6","author":"M Ichikawa","year":"2017","unstructured":"Ichikawa M, Akira S, Takeshita T. Laparoscopic posterior colporrhaphy using a unidirectional barbed suture for risk hedging laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017;6:96\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.gmit.2017.02.001.","journal-title":"Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther"},{"key":"5534_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1465","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-018-4738-0","volume":"297","author":"F Vidal","year":"2018","unstructured":"Vidal F, L\u00e9onard F, Andr\u00e9 B, Guerby P, Jourdain O. Comparative mid-term anatomical and functional outcomes following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in women under and over 65: results from a prospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297:1465\u201372. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00404-018-4738-0.","journal-title":"Arch Gynecol Obstet"},{"key":"5534_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1655","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-019-04076-8","volume":"31","author":"M Smazinka","year":"2020","unstructured":"Smazinka M, Kalis V, Havir M, Havelkova L, Ismail KM, Rusavy Z. Obesity and its long-term impact on sacrocolpopexy key outcomes (OBELISK). Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:1655\u201362. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-019-04076-8.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"key":"5534_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"156","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000233","volume":"22","author":"MF Aslam","year":"2016","unstructured":"Aslam MF, Osmundsen B, Edwards SR, Matthews C, Gregory WT. Preoperative prolapse stage as predictor of failure of sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:156\u201360. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000233.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"5534_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"409","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2021.11.002","volume":"29","author":"A Padoa","year":"2022","unstructured":"Padoa A, Shiber Y, Fligelman T, Tomashev R, Tsviban A, Smorgick N. Advanced cystocele is a risk factor for surgical failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022;29:409\u201315. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jmig.2021.11.002.","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"key":"5534_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"188","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2022.03.037","volume":"272","author":"Z Rusavy","year":"2022","unstructured":"Rusavy Z, Najib B, Abdelkhalek Y, Grinstein E, Gluck O, Deval B. Outcomes of sacrocolpopexy\/sacrohysteropexy with mesh placement targeted to affected compartment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;272:188\u201392. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2022.03.037.","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"key":"5534_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"213","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-012-1827-7","volume":"24","author":"SS Chan","year":"2013","unstructured":"Chan SS, Cheung RY, Lai BP, Lee LL, Choy KW, Chung TK. Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire in women undergoing treatment for pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:213\u201321. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-012-1827-7.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"key":"5534_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"580.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.02.007","volume":"200","author":"MD Barber","year":"2009","unstructured":"Barber MD, Spino C, Janz NK, et al. The minimum important differences for the urinary scales of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:580.e1\u22127. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.02.007.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"5534_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"342","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000078","volume":"20","author":"JE Jelovsek","year":"2014","unstructured":"Jelovsek JE, Chen Z, Markland AD, et al. Minimum important differences for scales assessing symptom severity and quality of life in patients with fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:342\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000078.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"5534_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"87","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000049","volume":"20","author":"C Lewis","year":"2014","unstructured":"Lewis C, Salamon C, Priestley JL, Gurshumov E, Culligan P. Prospective cohort study of bowel function after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:87\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000049.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"5534_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"736","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003448","volume":"134","author":"LE Giugale","year":"2019","unstructured":"Giugale LE, Carter-Brooks CM, Ross JH, Shepherd JP, Zyczynsky HM. Outcomes of a staged midurethral sling strategy for stress incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:736\u201344.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"5534_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"317","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000278","volume":"22","author":"L Turner","year":"2016","unstructured":"Turner L, Lavelle E, Lowder JL, Shepherd JP. The impact of obesity on intraoperative complications and prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:317\u201323. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000278.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"5534_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"90","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2021.10.020","volume":"267","author":"A Azadi","year":"2021","unstructured":"Azadi A, Marchand G, Masoud AT, et al. Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the uterus, a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;267:90\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2021.10.020.","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"key":"5534_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jogc.2021.10.012","volume":"44","author":"R Wang","year":"2022","unstructured":"Wang R, Tunitsky-Bitton E, Ramaseshan AS. Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022;44:359\u201364. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jogc.2021.10.012.","journal-title":"J Obstet Gynaecol Can"},{"key":"5534_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"97","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2013.07.008","volume":"21","author":"UU Andy","year":"2014","unstructured":"Andy UU, Nosti PA, Kane S, et al. Incidence of unanticipated uterine pathology at the time of minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:97\u2013100. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jmig.2013.07.008.","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"key":"5534_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"165","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000874","volume":"27","author":"OH Chang","year":"2021","unstructured":"Chang OH, Davidson ERW, Thomas TN, Paraiso MFR, Ferrando CA. Predictors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrocolpopexy: a matched case-control study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27:165\u201370.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"}],"container-title":["International Urogynecology Journal"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00192-023-05534-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00192-023-05534-0\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00192-023-05534-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,9,18]],"date-time":"2023-09-18T14:03:56Z","timestamp":1695045836000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s00192-023-05534-0"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,13]]},"references-count":30,"journal-issue":{"issue":"9","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2023,9]]}},"alternative-id":["5534"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-023-05534-0","relation":{},"ISSN":["0937-3462","1433-3023"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0937-3462","type":"print"},{"value":"1433-3023","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,13]]},"assertion":[{"value":"12 January 2023","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"26 February 2023","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"13 April 2023","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"None.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflicts of interest"}}]}}