ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2024
Robotic sacrocolpopexy.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Graft-Related Complications and Recurrence Following Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy With Xenografts and Allografts.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- The Safety of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2025Pooled it
- Single-port robot-assisted repair of cesarean scar defect using the da Vinci SP system with near-infrared and simultaneous multi-image display for precise defect localization and excision.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Sacropexy Versus Vaginal Sacrospinous Fixation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Comparison of Surgical Outcomes and Quality of Life.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Relation between pelvic organ prolapse and menopausal hormone therapy: nationwide cohort study.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse-A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of Surgical Outcomes between the hinotori™ Surgical Robot System and da Vinci® Xi in Robot-assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
- Robot-assisted Sacrocolpopexy Efficacy and Safety for Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Associated With Pelvic Organ Prolapse.In vivo (Athens, Greece)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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common cause of gynecological disease in elderly women. The prevalence of POP has increased with an aging society. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) is safer and more effective than the vaginal approach in patients with apical compartment POP because it has a higher anatomical cure rate, a lower recurrence rate, less dyspareunia, and improved sexual function. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has replaced ASC. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) also helps overcome the challenges of LSC by facilitating deep pelvic dissection and multiple intracorporeal suturing. The RSC is technically easy to apply, has a steep learning curve, and offers many advantages over the LSC. However, insufficient data led us to conclude that the LSC is superior overall, especially in terms of costeffectiveness. The present review provides insights into different aspects of RSC, highlighting the most common benefits and concerns of this procedure. We searched for eligible articles discussing this issue from January 2019 to March 2022 to reveal the outcomes of RSC.
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.