ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2023
Financial analysis of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair with concomitant hysterectomy.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hysterectomy with Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy Versus Native Tissue Repair for Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Robotic Surgery and Hospital Reimbursement.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2023Review
- Signals in Health Inequity: Examining Social Needs and Costs in a Large Health System.The Journal of ambulatory care managementArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMinimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISCP) is increasingly used for uterovaginal prolapse, but comparative cost data of MISCP versus native tissue vaginal repair (NTR) are lacking. The objective was to determine the cost difference, from a hospital perspective, between MISCP and NTR performed with hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care center of women who underwent NTR or MISCP with concomitant hysterectomy in 2021. Hospital charges, direct and indirect costs, and operating margin (revenue minus costs) were obtained from Strata Jazz and compared using SPSS.
resultsA total of 82 women were included, 33 MISCP (25 robotic, 8 laparoscopic) versus 49 NTR. Demographic and surgical data were similar, except that MISCP had younger age (50.5 vs 61.1 years, p<0.01). Same-day discharge and estimated blood loss were similar, but operative time was longer for MISCP (204 vs 161 min, p<0.01). MISCP total costs were higher (US$17,422 vs US$13,001, p<0.01). MISCP had higher direct costs (US$12,354 vs US$9,305, p<0.01) and indirect costs (US$5,068 vs US$3,696, p<0.01). Consumable supply costs were higher with MISCP (US$4,429 vs US$2,089, p<0.01), but the cost of operating room time and staff was similar (US$7,926 vs US$7,216, p=0.07). Controlling for same-day discharge, anti-incontinence procedures and smoking, total costs were higher for MISCP (adjusted beta = US$4,262, p<0.01). Mean charges (US$102,060 vs US$97,185, p=0.379), revenue (US$22,214 vs US$22,491, p=0.929), and operating margin (US$8,719 vs US$3,966, p=0.134) were not statistically different.
conclusionMinimally invasive sacrocolpopexy had higher costs than NTR; however, charges, reimbursement, and operating margins were not statistically significantly different between the groups.
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.