ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Using Robotic-Assisted Sacral Hysterocolpopexy vs Vaginal Surgery with the Uphold™ System: 1-Year Clinical Outcomes.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Outcome 1 Year After Surgery by Robotics-Assisted Sacral Hystero-Colpopexy Versus Vaginal Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Short-Term Functional Outcomes After Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy versus Transvaginal Mesh Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Research and reports in urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes when using robotic-assisted sacral hysterocolpopexy (RASC) and vaginal surgery using the Uphold™ Vaginal Support System mesh for pelvic organ prolapse repair.
methodsThis was a nonrandomized, prospective, multicenter study in which 72 women underwent RASC, and 73 Uphold™ surgery, for apical prolapse (POP-Q C ≥ stage II). Anatomical outcomes were assessed using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Subjective outcomes were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire - short form (PFIQ-7), and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), as well as pain estimation using the visual analog scale (0-10).
resultsOne year after surgery, an optimal apical segment outcome (POP-Q C stage 0-1) was achieved in 96.4% and 93.3% for the RASC and Uphold™ respectively, p = 0.49. However, reoperation for prolapse recurrence was significantly more common after RASC (11 out of 72 [15.3%] vs Uphold™ (2 out of 71 [2.8%], p = 0.005), and an optimal outcome of the anterior vaginal wall was higher after Uphold™ (p < 0.001). Postoperative PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, and pain significantly improved for both RASC and Uphold™ (p = 0.004 to < 0.001), but a more pronounced improvement in the total PFDI-20 and POPDI-6 sub-scores was observed after Uphold™ than after RASC (-73 ± 55.6 vs -49.2 ± 43.7, p = 0.005 and -39.6 ± 23.6 vs -27 ± 23.9, p < 0.001 respectively).
conclusionsReoperation for prolapse recurrence within 1 year was more common after RASC than after Uphold™. However, the rate of complications was low overall and there were few and largely insignificant differences in outcomes when comparing RASC and Uphold™.
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.