ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes between Single-Port Robotic Sacrocolpopexy and Multi-Port Approaches.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comment on "Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes between Single-Port Robotic Sacrocolpopexy and Multi-Port Approaches".International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor "Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes between Single-Port Robotic Sacrocolpopexy and Multi-Port Approaches".International urogynecology journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo evaluate the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic (RSP) sacrocolpopexy (SCP) in comparison to the multi-port approach (RMP).
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study set at an academic, tertiary care center. The primary outcome was operative time (incision to closure) and the secondary outcomes included number and severity of complications. Medical charts were reviewed of patients who had undergone a robotic SCP between March 2018 and December 2024. Differences were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests, Fisher's exact tests, and multivariable regression models.
resultsOne hundred and eighty-one eligible cases were included. Among them, 109 patients underwent RMP, and 72 patients underwent the RSP approach. For operative time, RSP SCP was statistically significantly shorter than RMP SCP by 40 min (216 versus 176 min, p < .001). The hospital length of stay was shorter for the RSP group (11.0 versus 17.0 h, p < .001), while EBL showed no difference between groups (p = 0.18). No conversion to laparoscopy or laparotomy was found in both groups. Number and severity of adverse events assessed by Clavien-Dindo classification were similar and overall complication rates and complications requiring surgical correction under anesthesia did not show a difference (Clavien-Dindo Grade III, RMP 11.0% vs RSP 5.6%, p = 0.58). Median follow-up was 15.2 weeks postoperatively, and there were no significant differences in reoperation within 30 days, mesh erosion, prolapse recurrence and subsequent reoperations due to the recurrence.
conclusionsSingle-port robotic sacrocolpopexy is a safe and feasible minimally invasive technique to address apical pelvic floor prolapse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40540030What 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.