ReviewJournal of menopausal medicine2020
Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse among Peri- and Post-Menopausal Women.
Review in Journal of menopausal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Vaginal Hysterectomy on Quality of Life, Body Image, and Sexual Function in Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Study of Rural Women in a Low-Resource Setting.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Single-Incision vs. Multiport Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: 126 Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- New "Wrinkle Method" for Intracorporeal Anterior Vaginal Wall Plication during Sacrocolpopexy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Congenital Uterine Anomaly and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Rare Case of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in a Complete Bicornuate Uterus with Successful Pregnancy Outcomes Undiagnosed until the Time of Sacrocolpopexy.Journal of menopausal medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For patients with apical compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP), abdominal sacrocolpopexy has been considered superior to the vaginal approach in terms of less dyspareunia and decreased risk of recurrence. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC) can help overcome difficulties in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) by facilitating deep dissection and suturing. Moreover, RSC is a safe and efficacious option for patients with POP. It has several benefits, such as its high anatomical cure rate, improvement of sexual function, reduction of perioperative complications, and low recurrence rate. In addition, it can be a safe option for elderly patients. RSC has a steep learning curve and numerous other reported advantages compared with LSC; however, insufficient data conclude that the former is universally superior, especially in cost effectiveness. Thus, further studies are needed to support the widespread adoption of robot-assisted surgery for pelvic floor reconstruction.
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.