- An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP).Neurourol Urodyn. 2016; 35: 137-168
Avcıbay Vurgeç B, Kızılkaya Beji N. İleri Evre Pelvik Organ Proplapsusu Olan Kadınlarda Yaşam Kalitesi Ve Cinsel Yaşam. Cukurova Med J 2018;43(Ek 1):230–9.
- Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse.Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013; 24: 1783-1790
- Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse.Int Braz J Urol. 2020; 46: 5-14
- The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population.Int Urogynecol J. 2009; 20: 1037-1045
- Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors.Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22: 127-135
- Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: a population based study in Tanzanian rural community.PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0195910https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195910
- Pelvic organ prolapse in Northwest Ethiopia: a population-based study.Int Urogynecol J. 2020; 31: 1873-1881
- Management of uterine prolapse: is hysterectomy necessary?.Obstet Gynaecol. 2016; 18: 17-23
- Pelvic organ prolapse.Am Fam Physician. 2010; 81: 1111-1117
- Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89: 501-506
- Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse repair after hysterectomy.Int Urogynecol J. 2008; 19: 1623-1629
- Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 470.e1-470.e6
- Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse (Review) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses : The PRISMA Statement. 2009;6(7).
Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Vol. Version 5., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. 2008.
Green S, Higgins P. Julian T, Alderson P, Clarke M, Mulrow D C, Oxman D A. Cochrane Handbook: Cochrane Reviews: Ch 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for: Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011. p. 3–10.
- Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14: 135
- Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.BMJ. 1997; 315: 629-634
- A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of uterine prolapse using polypropylene mesh: hysteropexy versus hysterectomy.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes. 2009; 36: 65-72
- Vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral sacrospinous fixation plus an anterior mesh versus abdominal sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of primary apical prolapse in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled study.Int Urogynecol J. 2020; 31: 365-372
- Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study.Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 1687-1694
- A randomized comparison of post-operative pain, quality of life, and physical performance during the first 6 weeks after abdominal or vaginal surgical correction of descensus uteri.Neurourol Urodyn. 2005; 24: 334-340
- A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function.BJOG. 2004; 111: 50-56
- Laparoscopic cerclage sacrohysteropexy: comparing a novel technique for sacrohysteropexy to traditional supracervical hysterectomy and sacrocervicopexy.Female Pelvic Med Reconstructive Surgery. 2021; 27: e315-e320
Schulten SF, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HW. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ 2019;366.
- Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.BMJ. 2015; 351h3717
- One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study.Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 209-216
E. Ünlübilgin, A.A. Sivaslioğlu, T.T. Ilhan, Y. Kumtepe ID. Which one is the appropriate approach for uterine prolapse: Manchester procedure or vaginal hysterectomy? Turkiye Klin J Med Sci. 2013;33:321–5.
- Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2020; 24: 1-219
- Hysterectomy vs no hysterectomy for uterine prolapse in conjunction with posterior infracoccygeal colpopexy-a randomised pilot study 12 months review.Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2011; 22: S903-S904
- Hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension or UpholdTM hysteropexy in women with apical prolapse: a parallel cohort study.Int Urogynecol J. 2020; 31: 2137-2146
- A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of stage two, or higher uterine prolapse: hysterectomy with mesh vs only mesh implantation.Neurourol Urodyn. 2012; 31: 855
- Effect of vaginal mesh hysteropexy vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: as randomized clinical trial.JAMA. 2019; 322: 1054https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.12812
- Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes.Int Urogynecol. 2017; : 1285-1294
- Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28: 1617-1630
- Systematic Reviews 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: 129-146.e2
- Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.Int Urogynecol J. 2019; 30: 505-522
- Risk factors of surgical failure following sacrospinous colpopexy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 287: 1159-1165
- Significance of preoperative calculation of uterine weight as an indicator for preserving the uterus in pelvic reconstructive surgery.Int J Clin Exp Path. 2015; 8: 900
- A multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate mesh-augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse.Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 743-748
- Uterine-preserving POP surgery.Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24: 1803-1813
- Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 1-to 4-year follow-up of women postoperatively.Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25: 131-138
- Uterus conserving prolapse surgery—what is the chance of missing a malignancy?.Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 819-821