ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Robotic vs Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy During the Early Training Phase: A Single Center Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted, Laparoscopic and Transvaginal Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a Comparative Retrospective Single-Center Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Uterus-Preserving and Hysterectomy Approaches in Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- A case of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for atypical internal iliac vein inflow: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of Hugo™ robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in a high-volume tertiary center: a propensity-matched study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Critical Care and Surgical Management of Vascular Complications in Minimally Invasive Urological Reconstructive Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- 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
- Catastrophic complications of a robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a barbed suture: ischaemic bowel.Journal of surgical case reports · 2024Article
- Innovative vaginal manipulator technique vs. traditional method for vaginal fornix deployment in robotic sacrocolpopexy.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Value of Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging (dMRI) of the Pelvic Floor in Genital Prolapses.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Article
- The impact of diabetes mellitus on pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after robotic sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy versus Trans-Vaginal Multicompartment Prolapse Repair: Impact on Lower Bowel Tract Function.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSacrocolpopexy is the gold standard procedure for treating pelvic organ prolapse (POP) patients with apical defects. Different surgical approaches have emerged and been utilized successively, including traditional laparoscopy, single-hole laparoscopy, robotic laparoscopy, vaginal-assisted laparoscopy, and transvaginal approaches. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has attracted increasing attention as an emerging surgical technique and has unique advantages, such as a "simulated wrist" mechanical arm and high-definition three-dimensional (3D) visual field, which has gradually begun to be utilized in the clinical setting.
methodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting checklist, and a systematic literature search was conducted on six databases from their inception to 1st March 2020. We evaluated patients with POP who underwent RSC or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), outcomes (including perioperative outcomes: blood loss, operating times, blood transfusion, and hospital stay), surgery-related complications, as well as cure and recurrence rates.
resultsA total of 49 articles were available, including 3,014 patients, among which 18 were comparative studies on LSC
conclusionsRSC's application seems to contribute some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to promote equivalent clinical outcomes. Notably, heterogeneity among studies might have affected the outcome of the study. Consequently, high-quality and large-sample randomized trials comparing both techniques are necessitated.
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.