SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy, safety and perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for the surgical management of apical or multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (PROSPERO CRD42025111099), conducted according to PRISMA guidelines.
settingSecondary and tertiary care centres. POPULATION: Women undergoing sacrocolpopexy for POP.
methodsMedical databases (PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane) were searched from inception to April 2025 for studies comparing RASC versus LSC. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for RCTs and Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for observational studies. Data were meta-analysed separately by study design using odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying fixed- or random-effects models according to heterogeneity.
main outcome measuresOperative time, anatomical outcomes, complications, conversion to laparotomy, recurrence and patient-reported outcomes.
resultsFive RCTs and twenty-four observational studies were included. In RCTs, no significant differences between RASC and LSC in operative time, anatomical outcomes or patient-reported outcomes were found, with similar intraoperative and post-operative complication rates. In observational studies, perioperative outcomes, complications, mesh exposure, readmissions and recurrence were comparable, but RASC ensured lower conversion to laparotomy (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.3).
conclusionsRASC and LSC provide equivalent anatomical and clinical outcomes with similar morbidity. RASC may be particularly useful in complex or technically demanding cases.
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.