ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2020
Comparing laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Safety of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse with Concomitant Short Total Vaginal Length and Outcomes of Laparoscopic Mesh Sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of Hugo™ robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in a high-volume tertiary center: a propensity-matched study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Research trends of global artificial intelligence application in obstetrics and gynecology from 1999 to 2025: a bibliometric analysis based on web of science.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Intrafascial Colpotomy, Edge-to-Edge Closure, and Peritoneal Graft Technique for Minimizing Mesh Erosion in Concurrent Robotic Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: could we simplify the technique?Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the pelvic organ prolapse and vaginal prolapse among the global population.BJUI compass · 2025Review
- The impact of diabetes mellitus on pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after robotic sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy vs robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in women with primary advanced apical prolapse: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2023Article
- Single-center study for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacropexies: a one-fits-all strategy for pelvic organ prolapse?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review.International urogynecology journal · 2022Review
- Risk factors of lower urinary tract injury with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.AJOG global reports · 2022Article
- Conversion rate of laparoscopic or robotic to open sacrocolpopexy: are there associated factors and complications?International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to compare surgical outcomes after prior hysterectomy versus concomitant hysterectomy with laparoscopic/robotic minimally invasive sacral colpopexy (MISC).
methodsUsing all MISC from 2009 to 2014, patient sociodemographic and surgical data were compared between MISC with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy. Operative time (skin incision to closure) was compared with linear regression. Logistic regression compared complications, a composite variable including ≥1 transfusion, infection, readmission, reoperation, bowel obstruction/ileus, conversion to laparotomy, bowel/bladder injury, or mesh complication. Logistic regression compared prolapse recurrence defined as retreatment (pessary/surgery) or postoperative POP-Q points ≥ 0.
resultsEight hundred and sixteen patients were 59.6 ± 8.7 years old and predominantly Caucasians (97.8%), with BMI 27.4 ± 4.5 and predominantly POP-Q stage III prolapse (69.9%). Operative time was 205.0 ± 69.0 min. Concomitant hysterectomy increased operative time 17.8 min (p = 0.004) adjusting for age, POP-Q stage, total vaginal length, perineal body, lysis of adhesions or perineorrhaphy, changes in operating personnel (scrub tech/circulating nurse), case order during the day, and preoperative stress incontinence. Complications occurred in 15.8% and were more likely with prior hysterectomy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.43-3.70) adjusting for preoperative genital hiatus and perineal body, concomitant midurethral sling, obesity, and immunosuppression. During a follow-up of 31 weeks, 7.8% had prolapse recurrence with no impact from concomitant hysterectomy (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.41-2.24). Post-hoc power calculation would have required an unattainable size of >2,800 per group for this outcome.
conclusionsFor MISC, concomitant hysterectomy is associated with longer operative time but lower risk of complications. There was no impact of concomitant hysterectomy on prolapse recurrence, but longer follow-up may be needed for this outcome.
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.