ReviewNature reviews. Urology2015
Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of robot vs. laparoscopic surgery in urogynecology: current trends and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Pressure-volume analysis of thermodynamic workload of voiding - an application in pelvic organ prolapse patients subjected to robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Article
- The effect of concomitant hysterectomy on complications following pelvic organ prolapse surgery.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Article
- Regenerative robotics.Birth defects research · 2020Review
- The impact of fellowship surgical training on operative time and patient morbidity during robotics-assisted sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2018Article
- Surgical Outcomes and Safety of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy in Women With Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse.International neurourology journal · 2017Article
- Transient Left-Sided Paralysis following Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Uteropexy.Case reports in anesthesiology · 2015Article
- Surgical options for full-thickness rectal prolapse: current status and institutional choice.Annals of gastroenterologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has rapidly gained popularity over the past 10 years, owing to claims that it is associated with a reduced learning curve compared with standard laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and that it has equal efficacy to the gold-standard treatment, abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC). The specifics of the surgical technique used for RSC vary widely, but the basic steps and principles are largely the same. Although complication rates are low, specific complications can be minimized by meticulous attention to surgical technique at several important points in the procedure. Multiple levels of evidence support the efficacy of RSC, and show that it is associated with a shorter hospital stay and convalescence than ASC. The learning curve for RSC usually comprises 10-20 procedures but for those with extensive experience of laparoscopy it is likely to be even shorter. RSC is more expensive than LSC but cheaper than ASC. As RSC has only been used for about a decade, we await long-term outcomes of more than a few years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25800401What 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.