ReviewGynecological surgery
Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review.
Review in Gynecological surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- A probabilistic multicriteria decision analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a secondary analysis of published meta-analytic data.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- The Learning Curve in Urogynecology and Functional Urology: A Systematic Review.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse with an Emphasis on the Central Compartment: From Genetic Risk Factors and Biomarkers to Contemporary Sacropexy and Emerging Robotic Innovations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Observational
- Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Innovative vaginal manipulator technique vs. traditional method for vaginal fornix deployment in robotic sacrocolpopexy.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023Article
- Retrospective analysis of apical prolapse correction by unilateral pectineal suspension: perioperative and short-term results.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Learning curves and perioperative outcomes of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy on two different da VinciJournal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Financial analysis of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair with concomitant hysterectomy.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Medium- to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of stage III-IV pelvic organ prolapse.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Article
- Is robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy safe and effective in women over 65 years of age?International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- A Novel, Structured Fellow Training Pathway for Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy.The Permanente journal · 2021Article
- Perioperative adverse events in women over age 65 undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
- Current surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: Strategies for the improvement of surgical outcomes.Investigative and clinical urology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has gained popularity in the field of gynaecology, including pelvic floor surgery. To assess the benefits of RAS, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. The Cochrane Library (1970-January 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), and EMBASE (1974 to January 2015) were searched, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We identified two randomized trials (
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.