ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024
Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse-A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse with an Emphasis on the Central Compartment: From Genetic Risk Factors and Biomarkers to Contemporary Sacropexy and Emerging Robotic Innovations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisMinimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy (SC) is the gold standard for managing symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Robot-assisted laparoscopy (RSC) offers a promising surgical option compared to conventional laparoscopy (LSC). This study compares the clinical and operative outcomes of these techniques to determine if RSC is superior to LSC.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, single-center study in the Gynecology Department at the Citadelle Hospital in Liège, Belgium. Data from all patients who underwent SC between January 2019 and December 2023 were collected. We evaluated demographic and clinical data, perioperative complications, operative time (OT), length of stay, risk of recurrence and follow-up duration. Statistical analysis was performed to compare outcomes between the groups.
resultsData from 208 patients (97 LSC and 111 RSC) were analyzed. No significant differences were found between the groups. A higher body mass index trend was observed in the RSC group (mean BMI: 26.63, range: 20-43) compared to the LSC group (mean BMI: 25.45, range: 15-34; p = 0.0625). The median OT was similar (LSC: 111 min vs RSC 119 min; p = 0.104), with a notable reduction in OT compared to the literature. Additionally, more RSC procedures could be performed per day (3 RSC vs. a maximum of 2 for LSC).
conclusionRobot-assisted laparoscopy was not demonstrated to be superior to LSC. However, both procedures had comparable OT, significantly shorter than previously reported. RSC's operational efficiency might allow for a higher number of daily procedures, translating into practical benefits in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39432077What 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.