ArticleCureus2024
Robotic Surgery in Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Comparison of Ileopectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition affecting over half of women above the age of 50. Sacrocolpopexy is a widely recognized surgical approach for apical prolapse, restoring the vaginal axis effectively. Despite its efficacy, complications such as bowel dysfunction and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are common. Ileopectopexy, a newer technique utilizing the iliopectineal ligament, offers an alternative that may reduce complications while maintaining efficacy. This study compares the outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy and ileopectopexy in a tertiary care setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed the collected database of 35 patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy or ileopectopexy between 2021 and 2023. Surgeries were performed using either the Da Vinci or Hugo robotic systems. Parameters studied included console time, blood loss, complications, hospital stay, recurrence rates, and follow-up duration. Data was statistically analyzed using SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, v28.0), with a p-value of <0.05 considered significant.
resultsBoth groups had similar age distributions and presenting symptoms, most commonly complete uterine prolapse. Ileopectopexy had no complications, while sacrocolpopexy saw two vaginal lacerations. Blood loss was minimal across all cases (<100 mL). Post-operative bowel complaints were more frequent in the sacrocolpopexy group (14%), but absent in ileopectopexy. Hospital stay, console time, and additional procedures were comparable. Follow-up was longer for sacrocolpopexy (34.8 vs. 5.3 months).
conclusionBoth robotic sacrocolpopexy and ileopectopexy effectively managed apical prolapse with minimal blood loss and comparable hospital stays. However, ileopectopexy showed fewer bowel complications, making it a promising alternative. More extensive studies with longer follow-ups are needed to validate these findings.
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.