Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32420212›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2020

Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.

Jeffrey S Schachar, Catherine A Matthews

Open access · diamondAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 Urology
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffrey S SchacharFemale Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Departments of Urology and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Catherine A MatthewsFemale Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Departments of Urology and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · USInstitute for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Apical prolapseminimally invasivepelvic organ prolapsereviewrobotsacrocolpopexysurgical repair

Identifiers

PMID32420212
PMCPMC7215036
OpenAlexW2990878832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.