Trial reportJournal of minimally invasive gynecology
Cosmetic Appearance of Port-site Scars 1 Year After Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Supplementary Study of the ACCESS Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of minimally invasive gynecology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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.
Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies
Surgical Pain Control With Ropivacaine by Atomized Delivery
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines 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
- Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- The first robotic-assisted hysterectomy below the bikini line with the Dexter robotic system™.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2024Article
- Fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in comparing laparoscopic versus robotic abdominopelvic surgeries.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Two-port robotic hysterectomy: a novel approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2018Article
- Robotic Sacrocolpopexy-Is It the Treatment of Choice for Advanced Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse?Current urology reports · 2017Review
- Surgical Updates in the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveTo prospectively measure trocar site appearances 1 year after surgery in women participants in the Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies Trial, a 2-center randomized surgical trial (NCT01124916).
designSupplementary analysis of a surgical trial that randomized women to robotic or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (Canadian Task Force classification I).
settingOperative trial. PATIENTS: Women undergoing clinically indicated sacrocolpopexy for symptomatic stage ≥II pelvic organ prolapse were randomized to laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy (LASC) or robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy (RASC). Trocar skin incision closure was standardized by using Dermabond (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsPhotographs of all incision sites were taken at baseline (immediately), 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. Study coordinators scored each incision with the validated Stony Brook Evaluation Scale (SBES), a 5-point wound evaluation scale. We calculated the average of all scars scores per case to determine the percent of optimal wound healing (0%-100%) for each case as well as the proportion of cases meeting 100% wound repair scoring. Wound repair scores across groups were tested with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The overall proportion of cases in each group meeting "optimal" wound recovery (scores of 100%) was tested with the Fisher exact test. Seventy-eight women with a mean age of 59 years (range, 26-79 years) were randomized to LASC (n = 38) or RASC (n = 40). We did not detect significant differences in baseline characteristics or rates of dropout between the 2 study groups (5 in LASC and 7 in RASC, p = .60). Pain in the initial postoperative period was higher in the robotic arm although groups were similar at 2 weeks. Nearly all cases (75/78) contributed wound repair data (36 laparoscopic and 39 robotic). Laparoscopic surgeries require significantly fewer incisions (median = 4; range, 4-6) than robotic surgeries (median = 5; range, 4-6; p < .001). SBES scores at 6 weeks were not different for LASC and RASC (p = .426). By 6 months, the scores were better in the LASC group (84.8% ± 8.8% vs 78.5% ± 7.2%, p = .031), and this finding remained at 1 year (93.4% ± 7.2% vs 85.9% ± 8.8%, p = .001). The proportion of cases with optimal wound repair (score of 100%) was higher in the laparoscopic arm at 1 year after surgery (12/27 vs 4/33, p = .008).
interventionsWomen were randomized to robotic assisted laparoscopy or laparoscopy.
conclusionWound appearance using the SBES was better in the LASC group, suggesting that there may be alterations in the mechanism for wound initiation and/or healing based on the minimally invasive route used for sacrocolpopexy.
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.