SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2016
Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled 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
- Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2022Pooled it
- Robotic vs Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy During the Early Training Phase: A Single Center Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Robotic Surgery in Gynecology: Balancing Clinical Benefit, Cost-Effectiveness, and Accessibility.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Laparoscopic mesh sacr ocolpopexy versus lateral vaginal vault suspension in prevention of post hysterectomy vault prolapse: a randomized trial.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2025Article
- Article
- [Robot-assisted minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse-A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Sacrocolpopexy: The Way I Do It.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
- The Pure Extraperitoneal Approach for Sacrocolpopexy in Transvaginal Natural-Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery.Journal of gynecologic surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- A preliminary clinical report of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in the treatment of moderate and severe pelvic organ prolapse.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Perioperative outcomes of reconstructive surgery for apical prolapse in the very elderly: a national contemporary analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Quo Vadis Urogynecology 2020 - Innovative Treatment Concepts for Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2021Article
- Genital Prolapse Surgery: What Options Do We Have in the Age of Mesh Issues?Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Long-term safety, objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy without peritoneal closure.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Pelvic organ prolapse and sexual function.Nature reviews. Urology · 2020Review
- Perioperative adverse events in women over age 65 undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
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
introduction and hypothesisPelvic organ prolapse shows an increasing prevalence (3-50 %). The gold standard treatment for apical prolapse is sacrocolpopexy, which can be performed via minimal access (conventional laparoscopy or robotic surgery) or open sacrocolpopexy. The objective is to appraise the effectiveness and safety of robotic surgery compared with laparoscopic sacropexy in the treatment of apical prolapse.
methodsKeywords were searched in: CINAHL, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Cochrane MDSG Trials Register, Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Trials Registry Platform search portal, LILACS, and Google Scholar. A hand-search was also performed from IUJ and JMIG. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials evaluating all women who underwent robotic sacropexy (RSC) or laparoscopic sacropexy (LSC) were included. A data extraction tool was used for data collection. RSC was compared with LSC. Narrative analysis and meta-analysis (RevMan) were conducted where appropriate.
resultsNine papers compared RSC with LSC, involving 1,157 subjects. No significant difference was found between approaches for anatomical outcomes, mortality, hospital stay (MD: -0.72/95 % CI 1.72, 0.28], p = 0.16), and postoperative quality of life. However, robotic sacropexy had more postoperative pain and longer operating times, although fewer overall complications when performed concomitantly with hysterectomy (OR 0.35; 95 % CI 0.19-0.64).
conclusionsRobotic sacropexy was related to more postoperative pain and longer operating times. However, no significant differences were found regarding anatomical outcomes, mortality, hospital stay or postoperative quality of life. Cautious interpretation of results is advised because of the risk of bias caused by the inclusion of non-randomised studies. More research comparing RSC with LSC is mandatory, particularly draw conclusions regarding estimated blood loss and complication rate.
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.