SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2016
Laparoscopic versus open 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 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2016Pooled it
- Cosmesis and Body Image After Robotic Sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Mesh Exposure After Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy with Concomitant Total Hysterectomy or Uterine Preservation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Mesh-sacropexy in women with apical pelvic organ prolapse - results of a single-centre prospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Single-port robotic surgery in gynecology: first experience in German-speaking countries using the Da Vinci SP system in benign andneoplastic diseases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Association of Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy Route at the Time of Sacrocolpopexy with Postoperative Complications.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- [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
- Robotic versus Mini-Laparoscopic Colposacropexy to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study and a Medicolegal Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic vaginoplasty with peritoneal flaps and cervicoplasty in patients with congenital cervical and complete vaginal atresia: a pilot study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- A Laparoscopic Conservative Surgery Approach to Puerperium Complicated by Uterine Prolapse After Vaginal Delivery: A Case Series.Journal of family & reproductive health · 2023Article
- A comparative study in learning curves of laparoscopic lateral suspension vs. laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: preliminary results.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse repair: A retrospective cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Review
- New "Wrinkle Method" for Intracorporeal Anterior Vaginal Wall Plication during Sacrocolpopexy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Effect of BMI on clinical outcomes following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic management of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after open sacrocervicopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Obesity and its long-term impact on sacrocolpopexy key outcomes (OBELISK).International urogynecology journal · 2020Observational
- Rectal injury during laparoscopic mesh removal after sacrocervicopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.Translational andrology and urology · 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
introductionPelvic organ prolapse is showing an increasing prevalence (3 - 50%). The gold standard treatment of apical prolapse is sacrocolpopexy which can be performed via minimal access (laparoscopy or robotics) or open approaches. The aim of this review was to appraise the effectiveness of minimal access surgery versus the open approach 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 databases. Data up to 31 April 2014 were considered. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating all women who underwent minimally invasive sacropexy (MISC) and open sacropexy (OSC) were included. A data extraction tool was used for data collection. MISC was compared with OSC using narrative analysis and meta-analysis (RevMan) where appropriate.
resultsMISC and OSC were compared in 12 studies involving 4,757 participants. MISC and OSC were equally effective in terms of point-C POP-Q measurements and recurrence rate. MISC was associated with a lower transfusion rate (odds ratio 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 - 0.83), shorter length of hospital stay (mean difference -1.57 days, 95% CI -1.91 - -1.23 days), and less blood loss (mean difference -113.27 mL, 95% CI -163.67 - -62.87 mL) but a longer operating time (mean difference 87.47, 95% CI 58.60 - 116.34, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsMISC showed similar anatomic results to OSC with a lower transfusion rate, shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss. The rate of other complications was similar between the approaches. Cautious interpretation of results is advised due to risk of bias caused by the inclusion of nonrandomized studies.
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.