ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2020
Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaginal Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery for Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse: Evidence, Evolution, and Standardized Surgical Technique for Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Peri- and Postoperative Complications in Abdominal, Vaginal Extraperitoneal, and Vaginal Intraperitoneal Colpopexy.Cureus · 2025Article
- Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Minimal Invasive Abdominal Sacral Colpopexy and Abdominal Lateral Suspension: A Prospective, Open-Label, Multicenter, Non-Inferiority Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Robotic-assisted Gynecological Surgery in Older Patients - a Comparative Cohort Study of Perioperative Outcomes.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2023Article
- Editorial Comment: A systematic review of best prac-tices for the perioperative management of abdominal sacrocolpopexy.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to perform a scoping review of the medical literature regarding the efficacy, safety, and cost of robotic-assisted procedures for repair of pelvic organ prolapse in females. Sacrocolpopexy is the "gold standard" repair for apical prolapse for those who desire to maintain their sexual function, and minimally-invasive approaches offer similar efficacy with fewer risks than open techniques. The introduction of robotic technology has significantly impacted the field, converting what would have been a large number of open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) procedures to a minimally-invasive approach in the United States. Newer techniques such as nerve-sparing dissection at the sacral promontory, use of the iliopectineal ligaments and natural orifice vaginal sacrocolpopexy may improve patient outcomes. Prolapse recurrence is consistently noted in at least 10% of patients regardless of route of mesh placement. Ancillary factors including pre-operative prolapse stage, retention of the cervix, type of mesh implant, and genital hiatus (GH) size all adversely affect surgical efficacy, while trainees do not. Minimally-invasive apical repair procedures are suited to early recovery after surgery protocols but may not be appropriate for all patients. Studies evaluating longer-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexies are needed to understand the relative risk/benefit ratio of this technique. With several emerging robotic platforms with improved features and a focus on decreasing costs, the future of robotics seems bright.
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.