ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Single-center study for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacropexies: a one-fits-all strategy for pelvic organ prolapse?
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy using the Hugo-RAS system: initial series with no experience in robotic surgery.Gynecology and pelvic medicine · 2026Article
- Pressure-volume analysis of thermodynamic workload of voiding - an application in pelvic organ prolapse patients subjected to robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSarcopenia has been established as the "gold standard" for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Minimal invasive laparoscopy can help to reduce the risks of open access surgery. We compare the surgical results and outcomes of robotic-assisted sacropexies.
methodsIn this monocentric retrospective study we enrolled 49 patients operated on symptomatic POP. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of robotic-assisted sacropexy: patients with a history of hysterectomy received robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSCP; n = 19), while patients with subtotal hysterectomy received robotic-assisted cervicosacropexy (RCSP; n = 30). Failure was defined as recurrence of the disease with a need for reoperation. Validated questionnaires (the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7)), were used for evaluation of patients quality of life postoperatively.
resultsThe comparison between RCSP versus RSCP showed that the latter is related to slightly but not significantly increased recurrence rates and a higher impact of POP symptoms on quality of life in long-term follow-up (p = 0.04). Perioperative data showed similar complication rates in both RSP types but shorter postoperative time of bladder catheterization in the case of RCSP (p = 0.008).
conclusionsThe monocentric long-term data confirm that RSP is a safe and effective method of surgical POP treatment, regardless of the site of the anatomical compartment. In comparison to RSCP, RCSP is associated with a lower impact of POP symptoms on patients' quality of life with a tendency to slightly lower rates of POP recurrence.
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.