ArticleInternational neurourology journal2017
Surgical Outcomes and Safety of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy in Women With Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
Article in International neurourology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Apical Compartment Prolapse.International neurourology journal · 2020Article
- Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with autologous fascia lata: technique and initial outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2019Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the surgical outcomes and safety of robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) in patients with uterine/vaginal vault prolapse.
methodsBetween January 2009 and June 2015, 16 women with apical prolapse underwent RSC. Pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) examination was performed, and treatment success was defined as the presence of grade 0 or I apical prolapse upon POP-Q examination at the final follow-up. Pelvic floor distress inventory-short form 20 (PFDI-SF 20) was administered at every follow-up. A treatment satisfaction questionnaire was administered by telephone to evaluate patient satisfaction with the operation.
resultsMedian age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 56-68 years), and follow-up duration was 25.3 months (IQR, 5.4-34.0 months). Thirteen women (81.3%) had ≥grade III apical prolapse. Operation time was 251 minutes (IQR, 236-288 minutes), and blood loss was 75 mL (IQR, 50-150 mL). Median hospital stay was 4 days (IQR, 3-5 days). At the final follow-up, treatment success was reported in all patients, who presented grade 0 (n=8, 57.1%) and grade I (n=6, 42.9%) apical prolapse. Dramatic improvements in PFDI-SF 20 scores were noted after RSC (from 39 to 4; P=0.001). Most patients (12 of 13) were satisfied with RSC. An intraoperative complication (sacral venous plexus injury) was reported in 1 patient, and there was no conversion to open surgery. Mesh erosion was not reported.
conclusionsRSC is an efficient and safe surgical option for apical prolapse repair. Most patients were satisfied with RSC. Thus, RSC might be one of the best treatment options for apical prolapse in women.
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.