SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2022
Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- A probabilistic multicriteria decision analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a secondary analysis of published meta-analytic data.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of robot vs. laparoscopic surgery in urogynecology: current trends and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The Safety of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome 1 Year After Surgery by Robotics-Assisted Sacral Hystero-Colpopexy Versus Vaginal Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Surgical treatment of apical prolapse Number 9 - 2026.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2026Review
- Robotic Sacrocolpopexy With Versus Without Supracervical Hysterectomy.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Comparative outcomes of Hugo™ robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in a high-volume tertiary center: a propensity-matched study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Global research trends of robotic-assisted surgery in Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery: a bibliometric and visualization analysis based on web of science.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy Using Autologous Round Ligament Grafts: A Novel Non-Mesh Surgical Approach for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Using Robotic-Assisted Sacral Hysterocolpopexy vs Vaginal Surgery with the Uphold™ System: 1-Year Clinical Outcomes.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
- Robotic sacrocolpopexy: a game worth playing? A critical literature analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Laparoscopic vs. robotic sacrocolpopexy: influence of age, BMI, and parity on perioperative outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse-A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Robotic sacrocolpopexy.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- 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
- HUGO(TM) RAS System in urogynaecology: the first nerve sparing Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisAbdominal sacrocolpopexy is regarded as the gold standard for management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Nowadays, minimally invasive surgeries are preferred, and sacrocolpopexy can be performed using either a laparoscopic or robotic-assisted approach. The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsWe performed a systematic literature review of different databases and related references from their inception until July 2020 without language restrictions. All randomized control trials and comparative studies that compared RASC and LSC for the management of POP were included.
resultsA total of 13 studies including 2115 participants were included for the pooled analysis. The pooled results revealed that RASC was associated with a significantly longer operative time (weighted mean difference, 29.53 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.88 to 46.18 min, P = 0.0005), significantly less estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference, -86.52 ml; 95% CI -130.26 to -42.79 ml, P = 0.0001), significantly fewer overall intraoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.6; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91; P = 0.01) and significantly lower conversion rate (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; P = 0.01) compared with LSC. There were no significant differences between the length of hospital stays, overall postoperative complications, postoperative stress incontinence, mesh erosion and effectiveness between the two groups.
conclusionThe current study showed comparable efficacy between RASC and LSC. Though RASC was associated with less blood loss and a lower conversion rate, the differences were not clinically significant. The choice of surgical procedure with either RASC or LSC is according to surgeon discretion and patient preferences.
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.