Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24463657›Full record

Trial reportObstetrics and gynecology2014

Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.

Jennifer T Anger, Elizabeth R Mueller, Christopher Tarnay, Bridget Smith, Kevin Stroupe, Amy Rosenman, Linda Brubaker, Catherine Bresee, Kimberly Kenton

Erratum issued 2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 83 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
16.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01124916 nacompletednot on this map

Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies

TypeinterventionalSponsorLoyola UniversityRan2009 to 2013Enrolled84ConditionsPelvic Organ ProlapseArmsRobotic assisted laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy, Standard laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy
NCT07218016 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Accelerometer Measured Early Recovery After Prolapse Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorNICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders NetworkRan2025 to 2028Enrolled288ConditionsPelvic Organ Prolapse, Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), Pelvic Organ Prolapse Vaginal Surgery, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Patient EducationArmsPostoperative Exercise regimen
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 256 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse.Current urology reports · 2015
    Pooled it
  16. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer T AngerDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, and the Biostatistics & Bioinformatics Research Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and the Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; and the Departments of Obstetrics/Gynecology & Urology and Public Health Sciences, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, and the Center of Innovation in Complex Chronic Healthcare, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois.
Elizabeth R Mueller
Christopher Tarnay
Bridget Smith
Kevin Stroupe
Amy Rosenman
Linda Brubaker
Catherine Bresee
Kimberly Kenton
Loyola University Medical Center · US

Funding

Increasing the Utility of Contrast Agents for MRIRC1EB010649 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ANGER, JENNIFER TASH, KENTON, KIMBERLY SUE · 2009 to 2010
$996k
NIBIB NIH HHS RC1 EB010649NIBIB NIH HHS RC1 EB010649-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLaparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy are widely used for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) treatment. Evidence comparing outcomes and costs is lacking. We compared costs and clinically relevant outcomes in women randomized to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy.

methodsParticipants with symptomatic stage POP II or greater, including significant apical support loss, were randomized to either laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. We compared surgical costs (including costs for robot, initial hospitalization) and rehospitalization within 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, POP quantification, symptom severity and quality of life, and adverse events.

resultsWe randomized 78 women (mean age 59 years): laparoscopic (n=38) and robotic (n=40). The robotic sacrocolpopexy group had higher initial hospital costs ($19,616 compared with $11,573, P<.001) and over 6 weeks, hospital costs remained higher for robotic sacrocolpopexy ($20,898 compared with $12,170, P<.001). When we excluded costs of robot purchase and maintenance, we did not detect a statistical difference in initial day of surgery costs of robotic compared with laparoscopic ($12,586 compared with $11,573; P=.160) or hospital costs over 6 weeks ($13,867 compared with $12,170; P=.060). The robotic group had longer operating room times (202.8 minutes compared with 178.4 minutes, P=.030) and higher pain scores 1 week after surgery (3.5±2.1 compared with 2.6±2.2; P=.044). There were no group differences in symptom bother by Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, POP stage, or rate of adverse events.

conclusionCosts of robotic sacrocolpopexy are higher than laparoscopic, whereas short-term outcomes and complications are similar. Primary cost differences resulted from robot maintenance and purchase costs. CLINICAL

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01124916. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Indexed as

Gynecologic Surgical ProceduresLaparoscopyRoboticsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPelvic Organ ProlapseTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24463657
PMCPMC4266590
OpenAlexW2076941259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.