Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34159402›Full record

Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2022

Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy: not only for vaginal vault suspension? An observational cohort study.

Femke van Zanten, Egbert Lenters, Ivo A M J Broeders, Steven E Schraffordt Koops

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Robotic sacrocolpopexy.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Femke van ZantenDepartment of Gynecology, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. f.vanzanten@umcutrecht.nl.
Egbert LentersDepartment of Gynecology, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Ivo A M J BroedersFaculty of Science and Technology, Institute of Technical Medicine, Twente University, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Steven E Schraffordt KoopsDepartment of Gynecology, Meander Medical Center, Maatweg 3, 3813 TZ, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisSurgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has high recurrence rates. Long-term anatomical and patient-reported outcomes after pelvic floor repair are therefore required.

methodsThis prospective observational cohort study was conducted in a teaching hospital with tertiary referral function for patients with POP. Patients with symptomatic vaginal vault or uterine prolapse (simplified POP Quantification [sPOPQ] stage ≥2), who underwent robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) or supracervical hysterectomy with sacrocervicopexy (RSHS), were included. Follow-up visits with sPOPQ evaluations were planned 4 years after surgery. Patients received pre- and postoperative questionnaires reporting symptoms of vaginal bulge, Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6), and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7). Primary outcome was patient self-reported symptoms. Secondary outcome was anatomical cure (sPOPQ stage 1) for all vaginal compartments.

resultsSeventy-seven patients were included. Sixty-one patients (79%) were evaluated after 50 months (physical examination n = 51). Symptoms of bulge (95% vs 15% p ˂ 0.0005), median UDI-6 scores (26.7 vs 22.2, p = 0.048), median PFIQ-7 scores (60.0 vs 0, p = 0.008), and median sPOPQ stages in all landmarks improved significantly from the pre- to the postoperative visit. Thirty patients (59%) were completely recurrence free and 96% of patients had no apical recurrence. Most recurrences were asymptomatic cystoceles (20%). There was one surgical re-intervention for recurrent prolapse (1.6%).

conclusionsRobot-assisted sacrocolpopexy and RSHS show sustainable results in the treatment of prolapse. Symptoms of bulge, urinary symptoms, and quality of life improved substantially 50 months postoperatively. Patients should be counseled about the risk of anterior wall recurrence and the small chance of recurrent symptoms that need treatment.

Indexed as

Pelvic Organ ProlapseRoboticsCohort StudiesFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansProspective StudiesQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeFemale pelvic organ prolapseRecurrenceRobot-assisted surgerySacrocervicopexySacrocolpopexy

Identifiers

PMID34159402
PMCPMC8803761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.