ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2012
[Sacropolpopexy - pro robotic].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is a standard procedure for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse of all three compartments and can also be performed minimally invasively without compromising efficacy as by open techniques. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy benefits from several technical stand-alone features, such as three-dimensional view, increased degrees of freedom through angulated instruments, tremor filter and up and down scaling of instrument movements. These advantages facilitate preparation of the vesicovaginal and rectovaginal spaces as well as suturing and reperitonealization, which should lead to decreased operation time and anesthesia time in extreme Trendelenburg position. Surgeon also benefit from the much more ergonomic working conditions of the da Vinci® system: however, comparative studies are rare and conclusions are preliminary. The German reimbursement system (DRG) does not adequately cover da Vinci expenses which, despite the obvious advantages represents the most significant obstacle in the propagation of this technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.