ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2020
Ultrasonography and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy with pubocervical fascia reconstruction: comparison with standard technique.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative image-guidance during robotic surgery: is there clinical evidence of enhanced patient outcomes?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate our technique of ultrasonography and robotic-assisted sacrocervicopexy with pubocervical fascia reconstruction (u-RALS-PFR) versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy (s-RALS) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic apical/anterior vaginal prolapse. A retrospective analysis was done using the data in two community hospitals. Thirty women presented with symptomatic vaginal apical prolapse and desired minimally invasive surgery (video): (a) standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy (s-RALS) (n = 15) or (b) ultrasound and robotic-assisted sacrocervicopexy with pubocervical fascia reconstruction (u-RALS-PFR) (n = 15) were eligible to participate. All participants underwent a standardized evaluation, including a structured urogynecologic history and physical examination with pelvic organ prolapse quantitative staging. There was longer operating room time in the u-RALS-PFR group compared with the s-RALS group (average difference 35 min); however, sacral promontory dissection time was less in the u-RALS-PFR (average difference of 15 min). The anterior/posterior vaginal dissection and mesh tensioning time was longer in the u-RALS-PFR, as expected. There was only one surgical and anatomic failure (7%) in the s-RALS group after 6 months of surgery (POP Q = Aa + 1, Ba0, Ap-2, Bp-3, C-7). Our technique of ultrasonography and pubocervical fascia reconstruction during RALS appears to be feasible and safe. It aims to improve anterior and apical support, minimize the use of mesh and improve visualization during surgery. u-RALS-PFR approach will add some additional time during surgery but may provide better outcomes.
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.