Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30697557›Full record

ReviewRobotic surgery (Auckland)2016

Management of pelvic organ prolapse in the elderly - is there a role for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy?

Hadley Narins, Teresa L Danforth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Robotic surgery (Auckland), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hadley NarinsDepartment of Urology, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA, danforth@buffalo.edu.
Teresa L DanforthDepartment of Urology, The State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA, danforth@buffalo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is considered the gold standard treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Since its introduction, robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy has emerged as a popular minimally invasive alternative to open repair. Epidemiologic data suggest that the number of women seeking surgical treatment for POP will increase to ~50% by 2050, and many of these women will be elderly. Advanced age should not preclude elective POP surgery. Substantial data suggest that medical comorbidities and other preoperative markers may be more important than age in predicting adverse surgical outcomes. POP surgery in the elderly has been extensively studied and found to be safe, but there is a paucity of information regarding robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy in this population. Data are only beginning to emerge regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic surgery in the elderly, with most studies focusing on oncologic procedures. Preliminary studies in this setting suggest that elderly patients may benefit from a minimally invasive approach, although given their limited physiologic reserves, appropriate patient selection is essential. The purpose of this review article is to evaluate the stepwise management of POP in the elderly female, with a focus on the safety and feasibility of a robotic approach.

Indexed as

abdominal sacrocolpopexyagedpelvic organ prolapserobotic surgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID30697557
PMCPMC6193441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.