ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2025 Delphi consensus on robotic ventral mesh rectopexy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Guideline
- Robotic midurethral sling removal: surgical technique and outcomes of a single center series.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Defining Uroplastics as a Collaborative Discipline at the Interface of Urology and Plastic Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- European Delphi consensus on specific training, implementation requirements, and clinical use for the Hugo™ robotic-assisted surgery platform in colorectal procedures.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Pectopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Scoping Review.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Unveiling the real benefits of robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology: from telesurgery to image-guided surgery and artificial intelligence.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2025Article
- What Is Needed to Determine and Potentially Improve the Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Reconstructive Urinary Tract and Pelvic Floor Surgery?-ICI-RS 2024.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025Review
- A Delphi-based exploration of factors impacting blood loss and operative time in robotic prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse-A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors at 20 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion.
methodsWe set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis.
resultsThe 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy.
conclusionRobotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.
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.